SURAJ NARAIN Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which these two connected appeals arise was instituted by the plaintiffs Gopinath, Ramprasad and Mangilal against the defendants Rami'ilal, Smt. Durga Devi and Surajnarain under Section 92, C. P. C. after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General of Rajasthan, Subsequently Sun-derlal was also added as defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs claim that defendant No. 1 Ramjilal, defendant No. 3 Surajnarain and defendant No. 4 Sunderlal be removed as trustees in respect of a Bagichi and Dharamshala situated in the Gangapur city, District Sawai madhopur, and other suitable persons be appointed as trustees. Another prayer contained in the plaint was that the gift deed dated 4-7-53 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 Durga Devi by defendant No. 1 Ramjilal in respect of property marked as No. 2 in the site plan Ex. X alleged to be a part of the trust property be declared void and ineffective. Lastly it was prayed that if defendant No. 3 surajnarain is found to be in possession of any part of the alleged trust property, he may be dispossessed and the possession of the same be handed over to the trustees who may be appointed afresh.

(2.) PLAINTIFF No. 2 Eamprasad died during the pendency of the suit and his name was struck off. Defendant No. 1 Rami'ilal also died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court before the learned single Judge and his legal representatives were brought on the record. Plaintiff No. 1 Gopinath too died on 27-1-62 dtir-ing the pendency of the appeal before the learned single Judge. His name was struck off. Thus there remained only one plaintiff appellant Mangilal and an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants who had succeeded in the trial Court that the appeal by Mangilal alone was not maintainable. This objection was overruled and the appeal was allowed on merits.

(3.) IN this special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, an objection has again been raised by the defendants appellants that the plaintiff Mangilal alone could not have continued the appeal. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the language of Section 92 of the Code of Civil procedure which provides that the suit may be instituted either by the Advocate general or two or more persons having an interest in the trust. It is argued that mangilal alone could not maintain the appeal. This point, in our opinion, has no substance. In this connection, reference may be made to the following observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ali Begam v. Badrul-Islam ali Khan, AIR 1938 PC 184.