VENKATESHA MALLIA Vs. BAMMAMPALLI RAMAYYA 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 Mokhassors of the Shri Anaritha Padmanabha temple of Pudur 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 gave 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 exercise of the right of suit Venkateswar in re (1886) I.L.R. 10 M.98 and it is open to the Court to amend the order of sanction at any time Srinivasa v. Venkata (1887) I.L.R. 11 M.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. In the case of Mahamed Atthar v. Ranja Khan (1907) I.L.R. 34 C. 587 this point was considered and the learned Judges held that when sanction had been granted to three persons and two of them withdrew and one of the three joining with him two new persons brought a suit under Section 14 of the Act the suit was not defective by reason of two of the three plaintiffs being persons to whom leave to sue had not been awarded. There, no objection was taken at the trial and no issue framed as to the maintainability of the suit.