MEGHRAJ Vs. SRI DIGAMBAR JAIN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10 February 1915 a sale deed was executed by Buddhu, zamindar and Sangam Lal , lambardar and Jugla, rayaya of a house in khatta Pahladpur in favour of Shri Digambar Jain, khatta Pahladpur, whose managers were Man Singh, Niadar Mai and Ganga Saran for a sum of Rs. 300. Out of this consideration Rs. 290 were paid by Man Singh, one of the managers, before the Registrar and the sale deed contains a covenant that in case transferees are disturbed in possession or enjoyment of the property the said managers would have a right to recover the sale consideration from the vendors. The Jain temple in whose favour the sale deed was executed is a religious institution founded and maintained by the Jain community of khatta Pahladpur. After the execution of the sale the house was used as a panchaiti house by the Jain community for their charitable and religious purposes and for the accommodation of Sadhus. In or about the year 1934 this house or a considerable portion of it fell down and part of it was repaired by the Jain community. A fresh repairing or building up was again undertaken in 1936 and in its course the defendants who were all members of a Brahmin family residing at khatta Pahladpur took forcible possession of the house. As a result the plaintiffs instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad, Meerut, for the recovery of possession of the house against the defendants. The trial Court decreed the claim and on appeal this decree has been affirmed by the lower appellate Court and the defendants have now made a second appeal to this Court.

(2.) A number of questions arose in the Court below which are now settled by findings of fact. It has now been ascertained and found that the defendants have not got a shadow of a title to the property and they are pure and simple trespassers. It has also been ascertained and found that the plaintiff's vendor had legal title to the property and that the plaintiffs have been in exclusive enjoyment and possession of the property from the date of the sale in 1915 up to a few days prior to the suit in 1936. The questions which arise for consideration in this second appeal relate to the maintainability of the suit by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff 1 is Sri Digambar Jain Mandir, Pahladpur, through its manager Lala Nem Chand. The plaintiff 2 in the suit is Man Singh and plaintiff 3 is Sultan Singh and they are suing on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the other Jain community and Jain society of khatta Pahladpur. Proceedings have been taken by plaintiffs 2 and 3 under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., and the suit has been made a representative one on be-half of the entire Jain community of khatta Pahladpur. In the written statement the defendants pleaded that the three plaintiffs were not the duly appointed managers of plaintiff l. At the trial in the Court below as well as in the arguments before the Court of appeal the challenge however was a much wider one. It was contended that the Jain temple could not be regarded as a juristic person and was incapable of holding any property or of bringing a suit to enforce rights relating to a property. The trial Court held that in the pleadings the competency of the temple to hold the property and to bring the suit was not challenged and therefore the question properly does not arise in the case. It also held that the sale of 1915 may be regarded in favour of three managers, one of whom was plaintiff 2 and he alone was entitled to maintain an action. The trial Court further held that in any view of the matter plaintiffs 2 and 3 on behalf of the Jain community were entitled to maintain the suit. The Court of appeal has affirmed the finding of the trial Court on all these matters excepting the right of plaintiffs 2 and 3 to maintain the suit. The lower appellate Court having found that plaintiff 1 was entitled to maintain the suit, it did not express any view one way or the other with regard to the rights of plaintiffs 2 and 3 to maintain the action.

(3.) The arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants in this appeal may now be shortly stated. He contends that the Hindu temple, and according to him Jain temple stands in the same position as a Hindu temple, is not a juristic person and consequently it cannot hold property or bring a suit. The sale of 1915 was according to him in favour of the Jain temple. Therefore, plaintiff 1 has no right either to hold the property or to bring a suit and as the plaint bases the entire claim upon the rights of plaintiff 1 alone in whose favour the sale-deed was, the rights of plaintiffs 2 and 3 do not arise in the case and they have no right to maintain the action. Now as a matter of construction of the plaint, I do not accept the contention that the plaint as framed embraces a claim to enforce the rights of plaintiff 1 alone. The plaintiffs were alive to the technical difficulty which has been raised in the case and they have made three plaintiffs to the action, plaintiff 1 representing temple and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as representing the Jain community. In the body of the plaint it is definitely stated that the house after purchase was used by the Jain community as the Panchaiti house and the community has been in possession of it. I have already stated that proceedings were taken under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C, to make the suit a representative one on behalf of the Jain community of Pahladpur. In my opinion therefore the plaint may be regarded as a combined plaint both on behalf of the Jain temple as well as on behalf of the Jain community, and on the findings arrived at by the trial Court which on fact is not disputed before me, plaintiffs 2 and 3 in any view of the matter were entitled to maintain the action and the decree passed by the Court below is correct and this finding concludes the appeal. But as a serious argument has been addressed to me by Dr. Sen against the rights of plaintiff 1 to maintain the action, I propose to take a short notice of it.