MONMOTHO NATH DAS Vs. HARISH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a suit, which the plaintiffs have brought on behalf of themselves and certain members of the Satchasi community of Chatra, to obtain a declaration of their right to take part in the management of the worship of the goddess Sitala celebrated at that village and to have joint possession with the defendants of two plots of land, on which the worship of the goddess is carried on. The lower Appellate Court has given the plaintiffs a decree. The defendants appeal. The grounds of appeal urged before us are, (1) that the suit is not maintainable under Section 30, Civil P. C.; (2) that the plaintiffs have not conformed to the requirements of Section 30, (3) that there is defect of parties, (4) that the Judge's finding is wrong on the facts, (5) that the suit is barred by limitation, (6) that the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the exclusive right of worship of the defendants, and (7) that the decree should have been limited to plot (1), the plot on which the house, in which the worship of the goddess is carried on, is situated.

(2.) These grounds of appeal seem to me to be very technical. The object of the appeal appears to me to call in question the finding of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Judge on the merits.

(3.) The first objection is that the suit should have been brought under Section 539 and that the provisions of Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable as the plaintiffs sue on behalf of the general public, whose number cannot be determined. This is not so. From the plaint it is clear that the plaintiffs are suing for themselves and for the members of the Satchasi community, a small and easily determinable body. In any case the suit is maintainable by the plaintiffs and it is doubtful if a decree has been given to any, but them. The requirements of Section 30 were fully complied with. Notices were served on 21 persons and notice was given to others by public advertisement.