ANJANEYA DASU ASHRAMAM Vs. KOMMALA SOMASUNDARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both C.M.A. No. 17 of 1963 and C.R.P. No. 1141 of 1963: arise out of an order dated the 27th March, 1962, passed by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, whereby he refused to allow the petitioners to sue in forma pauperis and dismissed their petition with costs.

(2.) The petitioners are the worshippers of " Hanuman " and the suit is in relation to certain properties alleged to have been dedicated to the deity by Kammala Lakshmikanthamma under a will dated the 26th June, 1942, for Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam, in the name of the institution known as Sarva Bhoota Dayalu Sri Kolapalli Anjaneyadasu Ashramam. The first defendant is the sister of the said Lakshmikanthamma. Defendants 2 and 3 are her brothers. The 4th defendant is a Managing Trustee appointed under the will and the 5th defendant is the Secretary of the association.

(3.) The case of the petitioners was that defendants 4 and 5 colluded with defendants 2 and 3 and allowed the latter to have their names registered in the municipal records in relation to these properties ; that they neglected to discharge their duties and allowed a Small Causes suit to be dismissed as against defendant 1 to 3, who thereafter transferred the said properties in favour of defendants 6 and 7 under sale-deeds dated the 7th September, 1959. According to the petitioners, the said' sales were sham transactions and collusive too. They cannot, therefore, pass any right, title or interest in the plaint schedule properties to the said alienees. The petitioners with these allegations brought the suit in forma pauperis in the name of and on behalf of the institution. As there were other worshippers like the petitioners innumerable, they further applied for and got permission under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code. The suit thus was in the name of the religious institutiont brought by the general body of worshippers. The tide of the suit indicates the same. The reliefs claimed also are expressly stated to be for and in favour of the institution and are to the following effect:- (a) to permit the plaintiff-institution to sue in forma pauper is and to declare that the plaintiff-institution is a pauper ; (b) for a declaration that the plaintiff-institution is entitled to the plaint: schedule properties and the owner of the plaint schedule properties ; (c) for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties from defendants 1 to 3 and 6 and 7 ; Further the petitioners made their signatures on the plaint only as representing " Sarva Bhoota Dayalu Sree Kolapalli Anjaneyadasu Ashramam."