BIHARI PD SINHA Vs. MAHANTH RAMSWARATH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed an application in the Court below for being added as party defendants in a title suit filed by plaintiff opposite party 1 against defendant opposite party 2 for a declaration that the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust had no jurisdiction to call upon the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of Chapter X of Bihar Act 1 of 1951, namely, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) and the plaintiff is not liable to comply with the same inasmuch as there is no trust of Public and charitable nature as contemplated by the Act. The said relief has been sought for on several grounds, one of which is that the public are not entitled to worship the deity as a matter of right. The petitioners wanted to be added as party defendants in the suit. Their allegation was that the Board officials were not properly looking after the suit, they were not properly defending it, in reality it was a public trust and the offi- cers will allow the case to go by default if the public who are interested in the trust are not allowed to defend it.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has refused to add them as party defendants, and they have come up in revision.

(3.) In my opinion, there is no special provision in the Act which governs the suit of the kind in question. A Full Bench in Nalini Kanta Chaudhary v. President of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, 1970 BLJR 306 = (AIR 1971 Pat 1 FB) has said that the declaration as to whether a particular trust is a public trust or a private trust has to be under Section 43 of the Act. I am inclined to think that if such a declaration is sought for before the Authority under Section 43 of the Act, the public may not be a necessary party. But if the suit is filed in a Civil Court and the suit is held to be maintainable then public are interested in the suit as beneficiaries of the trust. According to the petitioners, they have got every right to defend the Suit. No declaration of the kind sought for by the plaintiff can be given in their absence. The decree will not be binding on the public. It will be futile to declare that the public have no right of any kind in the property without impleading the members of the public in accordance with Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The view to the contrary taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is wholly erroneous, and by taking an erroneous view he has refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code.