SRI PUSHPAGIRI MUTT, BY ITS PEEDATHIPATHI SRI VIDYA NRUSIMHA BHARATHY SWAMY VARU Vs. RAMALINGA SASTRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4087 of 1969 on the file of the Fourth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondents herein are the defendants in that suit. The plaintiff is Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, Cuddappah, Cuddappah District, Andhra Pradesh. From a perusal of the records in the Court below, certain -essential features of the case do emerge out. An Executive Officer was appointed for the plaintiff -Mutt by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration), Andhra Pradesh, in pursuance of a scheme framed therefor. The plaintiff -Mutt Sled the suit for a declaration of title regarding the property at No. 20, Ekambareswarar Agraharam, Park Town, Madras, and for possession of the said property. There is no gainsaying that a Mutt, like an idol is a juridical person and is capable of acquiring, holding and vindicating legal rights through the medium of some human agency, which is ordinarily the agency of the person in charge of its affairs. It is beyond doubt that "Sri Pushpagiri Mutt", is the plaintiff in the suit. However, because an Executive Officer was appointed and was functioning for the plaintiff -Mutt, at the relevant times, the plaintiff -Mutt was described in the pleadings as follows:

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal, C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972, the plaintiff -Mutt preferred C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973 for permission to amend the cause title by removing the present cause title and inserting the new cause title as:

(3.) The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has dismissed C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972 on the reasoning that the Executive Officer of Sri Pushpagiri Mutt is not competent to maintain the appeal in view of the orders passed in C.M.P. No. 1013 of 1973. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree in C.M.A. No. 65 of 1972. The question that comes up for consideration in this revision is as to whether the Court below is right in dismissing the main appeal itself on the reasoning given by it.