SRISAILA PARVATHA SRIMAT GIRI RAJA SURYA SIMHASANA ATMAKUR PANCHAATADA STHIRA PATTADHYAKSHA VEERA SAIVA JAGADGURU NAGALOOTI BHIKSHAVARTHI SIVACHARYA DSSIKENDRA MAHASWAMY Vs. AMBATI CHENNA BASAVAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in, the appeal who is also the petitioner in the revision petition filed an application I.A. No. 217 of 1962 in O.S. No.56 of 1952 under O. 22, rule 3 and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, for bringing him on record as the legal representative of the plaintiff who died on 1st May, 1962. The petition was dismissed and the suit was held to have abated and the suit was there fore dismissed with costs. The applicant has preferred the above revision petition against the order dismissing the interlocutory application. He also preferred an appeal to the District Court against the decree dismissing the suit as abated. That appeal has been, transferred to this Court for being heard along with the revision petition and is numbered as Tr. Appeal No. 268 of 1965.

(2.) The application to bring on record the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff was made in the following circumstance Sree Giri Raja Surya Sinhasana Mutt (hereinafter called as 'the mutt') is one of the five ancient mutts instituted for the benefit of Veera Saivas. From time immemorial there have been two chief priests for the said mutt, one called Sthirapattadhikari, and another Charapattadhikari. The duty of the former consists in remaining at the headquarters collecting offerings and administering the endowments of the mutt and the duty of the latter to tour among the disciples of the mutt, living in different parts of India and collecting fees paid or offerings made by them for the institutions of the mutt. Nagalloti Bikshavarthi who was the Sthirapattadhikari died on 3rd July, 1940. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1952. Sub- Court, Kurnool brought that suit for a declaration that he is the sole Sthirapattadhikari and for an injunction restraining the defendant from styling himself as Sthirapattadhikari and for possession of various properties set forth in schedule 1 to the plaint. His case was that the chief priest of the mutt had to be nominated by the chief priest from out of the persons; belonging to Bikshavarthi family according to immemorial usage and if he dies without so nominating, his successor had to be elected from out of the same family. The defendant in the suit claimed himself as the successor of the deceased Sthirapattadhikari alleging that his nomination took place on 7th July, 1940. The plaintiff alleged that the nomination, even if true is void and of no effect, as the defendant was not a member of the Bikshavarthi family and for other reasons mentioned in the plaint. On the other hand, on the failure of the deceased Sthirapattadhikari to nominate his successor, the plaintiff was elected as the Sthirapattadhikari by the disciples of the mutt. He belonged to Bikshavarthi family and after election as Sthirapattadhikari, his pattabhishekam was performed on 14th October, 1940. Hence, he was the sole Sthirapattadhikari and he was exercising the duties of his office since his appointment. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was styling himself as Sthirapattadhikari and has trespassed into the properties of the mutt situate at Guntakal described in Schedule I to the plaint, which rightfully belonged to the plaintiff and had to be administered by him. There were other properties in Atmakur described in Schedule II. In criminal proceedings between the parties the said properties came under attachment. Those properties also belonged to plaintiff and had to be administered by him. The plaintiff, therefore filed the suit for establishing his title as the sole head of Sthirapattadhikari of the mutt and for an injunction restraining the defendant from styling himself as Sthirapattadhikari and for possession of the properties mentioned in Schedule 1.

(3.) As stated above, the plaintiff died on 1st May, 1962. The appellant herein filed I.A. No. 217 of 1962 for bringing himself on record as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. He stated that he belonged to Bikshavarthi family, that he was elected on 20th June, 1962 and he was therefore the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The question for consideration is whether in the circumstances above stated, the appellant is entitled to be brought on record as the legal representative and allowed to continue the suit. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the right to sue does not survive, as the suit was only for the establishment of the persona] right of the plaintiff and on the death of the plaintiff the suit abated. Before considering this main question it is necessary to advert to certain objections raised by the respondent.