LAXMAN PRASAD Vs. SHRIDEO JANKI RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a suit brought by Shrideo Janki Raman through its Mohatminkar for eviction of the defendant under section 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The Courts below have decreed the suit. The appeal came up for hearing before Naik J., and he referred the case to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the view expressed by Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop v. Deity Radhakishan etc.(1963 M P L J Note 46.) One of the questions that arose in the appeal was whether in a suit by a public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 all the trustees must join in filing the suit or whether the suit by one of the trustees was competent. Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop's case (supra), after making a contrast between rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that a trustee could represent the beneficiaries and it was, therefore, not necessary to join all the trustees.

(2.) WITH great respect to the learned Judge, the view that all trustees need not join in a suit can hardly be supported. In President Badri Narayan v. Gulam Rasool Fakhruddin (1969 MPLJ Note 77.) one of us (Sen J.,) had occasion to deal with the question. There, the suit was brought by one of the trustees as representing "Shri Rajulal Trust" which was registered under the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 for reimbursement. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. Due to this, the trustee applied under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to continue the suit in a representative capacity as representing all the trustees. That application, however, was rejected on the ground that no prior permission of the Court had been obtained. But while refusing the application, the Court observed that the trustee could apply under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code for impleading other trustees as co-plaintiffs in the suit. While dealing with the question, it was observed:

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bishwanath and another v. Shri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others(AIR 1967 S C 1044.)have also held that suit for declaration of title and possession brought by a worshipper in the name of the idol is maintainable, when the person representing it leaves it in the lurch. In such circumstances, a person interested in the worship of the idol is clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect it. In dealing with the question, their Lordships have reviewed the law on the subject. In particular, their Lordships relied upon a passage from Dr. Bijan Kumar Mukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 2nd Edn. p. 249 :