THAKUR DATTA SHARMA VAID Vs. BHAGMAL SAUHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendant-respondent for the recovery of Rs. 6,447/13/3, as arrears of rent. It was originally instituted in August, 1955, but an amendment of the plaint was allowed by an order dated 16th May, 1956 which was actually filed on 28th May, 1956. On 17th December, 1956, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla, Shri A.S. Gilani, disposed of ten preliminary issues and holding issue Nos. 2, 3 and 5 against the plaintiffs, dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to their own costs. These issues are :-

(2.) A plain reading of the judgment shows that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge is completely ignorant of the basic principles applicable to the filing of powers of attorney and to the question of the attorneys and recognised agents acting and signing plaints for and on behalf of the plaintiffs. To begin with, I may deal with the power of attorney filed on 4th July, 1956 which is signed by 13 persons as trustees of the Trust in question.

(3.) Again when five out of seven trustees were present at the meeting held on 28th December, 1954 and seven trustees had sent their written consent it was not right on the part of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge to embark on the enquiry as to whether or not the technicalities of some clauses of the trust deed in the matter of holding meetings had been complied with from every technical point of view. It must be borne in mind that it is not the other trustees who are denying having agreed to the institution of the suit, nor is it anybody's case that this suit is contrary to the interest Trust. The resolution passed at the meeting held on 28th December, 1954 is, in my opinion; prima facie valid and binding on the Trust and the defendant cannot object to its validity. The Court was, in my opinion, also wrong in going into the question of the items on the agenda for these matters related to the internal management of the Trust and the Court had nothing to do with it in the present proceedings at the instance of the defendant.