LAWS(PVC)-1934-3-47

VASA PANCHAKSHARI Vs. MANEM VENKATARATNAM

Decided On March 09, 1934
VASA PANCHAKSHARI Appellant
V/S
MANEM VENKATARATNAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are some of the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the weavers of Narasapur against two Dharmakarthas of a local temple in respect of a certain right claimed with regard to the location of their weaving appliances. The plaintiffs won their cause in the trial, in the first appeal and in second1 appeal before this Court, it being held that they had a customary right to set up their looms at the places objected to by the defendants. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed, the decree providing that the appellants do pay to respondents 1 to 4 Rs. 76 for their costs in opposing this second appeal.

(2.) In order to enforce this decree the1 plaintiffs took out execution personally against the defendants by applying for their arrest. The learned District Munsif disallowed the application on the-ground that the suit was against the defendants as Dharmakarthas and that the applicants in execution could recover their costs only against them as Dharmakarthas, the capacity in which they were sued, and against the properties of the temple in their hands. An appeal against this order to the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur failed, it being held there too that because the suit was against the Dharmakarthas as such and not in their individual capacities they could not be made personally liable for costs, which could only be recovered from the property of the temple in their hands.

(3.) The objection made in this appeal is that the Courts below have read into the decree something which is not stated therein, namely, that the costs are to be recovered only from the estate which the Dharmakarthas administer. It is argued that the direction to the defendants to pay the costs amounts to a personal decree against them to that effect, which may be enforced by the arrest of their persons. I have been referred to a case of this Court in which a Bench has considered a matter of this kind with reference to an Official Receiver in Insolvency, Balakrishna Menon V/s. Uma A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 105. The learned Judges first proceed to consider the specific position of an Official Receiver and point out that under English law special rules exist governing the liability of the trustee in bankruptcy with regard to costs incurred by him in litigation and further that upon this point there are no special rules in this Presidency.