V.H. SUBRAMANIA VADIAR, TRUSTEE OF VATAKANTHARA THIRUVENGATAPPAN DEVASWAM AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SAID VILLAGERS Vs. SREENIVASA VADIAR, SECRETARY, SREE KRISHNA BHAJANA MADOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two points raised in this second appeal are those set. out for determination in the lower appellate Court. They are these:

(2.) THE first point is one of fact. The learned advocate for the appellant criticises the judgment of the lower appellate Court and points out that some of the documents have not received sufficient consideration. He points out, for example, such a sentence as this:

(3.) IT is argued that when a Court grants permission to a person to represent a body, that decision is binding on the parties and cannot be re -agitated at any other stage of the suit or appeal. It is easy enough to see how injurious it might be to an institution if a person not entitled to represent it, possibly even inimical to it, were to obtain an order in his favour - -perhaps obtained exparte - -to represent that institution, and upon the Court's finding that he was not entitled to represent the institution, it could not dismiss the suit on that ground and was forced to pass a decree binding on the institution, when all the persons interested in the institution were content with the management and did not wish it to be interfered with. The learned advocate for the appellant, however, relies on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Gafuralli (Sayad Anwar and Ors.) v. : AIR1932Bom65 . There, certain Mahomedans were appointed under Order 1, Rule 8, to represent a mosque. A successor to the judge who granted the permission, after hearing the arguments for a large number of other persons interested in the mosque, who contended that the character of the plaintiff did not entitle him to present the community and that some other persons should be appointed, deleted the names of the original plaintiffs and substituted some others. It was held by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court that this could not be done, that it was not open to a succeeding Subordinate Judge to nullify an order passed by his predecessor, and that Sub -rule (2) of that rule provided ample opportunity to the others to get themselves impleaded as parties. Even that decision does not however say that it is not open to the appellate Court to hold that the trial Court ought not to have permitted the plaintiffs to file the suit. Moreover, the dispute there was between persons undoubtedly entitled to enjoy the institution as to who was the best qualified to represent it. No harm was done to anybody by allowing the plaintiffs to represent the institution; because the others equally interested in the institution could get themselves impleaded. A different situation arises when the - person who brings the suit is not entitled to represent the community at all. Venkatasubba Rao, J., in V. Krishna Aiyar v. : AIR1924Mad883 , said: