TULA RAM Vs. TIKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two applications in revision against two orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Muttra. One of the plaintiffs, the applicant, and Nathi Lal, instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge under the provisions of Section 92, Civil P.C., against Sunder Lai. It appears that one Bahadur Singh, father of Sunder Lal, by means of a registered deed dated 16 November 1924, created a trust. Under that deed according to the case set up by the plaintiff, six trustees were appointed, one of them being Sunder Lai, the son of Bahadur Singh. The other trustees died one after the other and Sunder Lal continued to be the manager of the trust property. The plaintiffs in their plaint stated that Sunder Lal had been mismanaging the trust properties. It was also stated that under the terms of the trust deed Sunder Lal had been directed that he should execute a rent deed in respect of a particular house and nohra which he and his sons occupied and that the rent should go towards the income of the trust property. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant never executed any rent deed in respect of this house. There were several other allegations in the plaint in respect of the charges of mismanagement and of not keeping accounts. The plaintiffs prayed that new trustees should be appointed, that accounts should be taken from the defendant and that a proper scheme should be framed for the management of the trust.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that it was a public trust. Sunder Lal filed a written statement contesting the claim. He set up a case that the trust was private and not public and therefore no suit could be maintained against him. He denied the allegation that he had to execute a rent deed in respect of the house. Issues were framed in the Court below. One of the issues was : "Whether the trust in dispute was a public trust or a private one?" During the pendency of the case Sunder Lal died. Thereupon the plaintiffs made an application asking that the names of the two sons of Sunder Lal should be brought on record. This prayer was contested by the sons of Sunder Lal who contended that they should not be made parties. Upon that the plaintiffs made an application that one Tikam Singh who is a nephew of Sunder Lal and another person, Phundan Lal, should be brought on record as Sunder Lal's legal-representatives. Phundan Lal disclaimed all interest in the property, while Tikam Singh asserted that he was holding it in his own right and not as representative of Sunder Lal. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the action against Sunder Lal was merely personal and the right to sue did not survive against his heirs. He did not agree to Tikam Singh's name being brought on record. The result was that he hold that the suit had abated because of the death of Sunder Lal.

(3.) The plaintiff 1 has preferred these two revision applications. One is about the order passed by the Court below declaring the suit to have abated and the other is about the order dated 21 November 1932, under which the Court directed that the plaintiffs should bring on record any other person other then the sons of Sunder Lal, if they wished to do so, whom they considered to be the legal representatives of the deceased.