VENKATESHA MALIA Vs. BRAMAYA HEGADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 the District Judge gave sanction to two individuals to sue for the removal of the respondents who are the moktessors of the Shri Anantha Padmanabha Temple of Perdur for misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty.

(2.) Although the sanction was given jointly to both, only one of the individuals took action thereon and sued the trustees.

(3.) When the suit came on for trial before the same Judge who give the original sanction, a preliminary objection was taken that the suit was bad because the joint sanction-holder had not joined in the suit. The Judge upheld this objection and dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff could not prosecute it alone. He further expressed a doubt as to the plaintiff s bond fides. The question before us therefore is whether one man should be allowed to sue under Section 14 of this Act upon the strength of a sanction given to two men. Such sanctions are a condition precedent to the exorcise of the right of suit Venkateswara, In re (1887) I.L.R., 10 Mad., 98], and it is open in the Court to amend the order of sanction at any time [Srinivasa v. Vankata (1888) I.L.R., 11 Mad., 148], but the plaintiff seems to have made no attempt to move the Court to alter the sanction by getting it granted in his name only.