KALYANA VENKATARAMANA AIYANGAR Vs. KASTURI RANGA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the question referred to the Full Bench is in these terms: " can the present suit be maintained at the instance of the plaintiffs acting neither on the relation of the Advocate-General nor with the sanction prescribed by Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, but merely suing on behalf of themselves and of other worshippers of the temple?" It appears from the plaint in this suit that the Devastanam Committee of the Temple of Venkataramana Swami in Tandoni Hill near Karur, now represented by defendants 1 to 9, granted on 9th September 1893 what is called a perpetual lease of the right to collect, offerings made by the pilgrims in cash and in gold and silver jewels, to defendants 10 to 14 who are the Archakas and Stanikas. It is alleged that the alienation of what is a chief source of income of the temple is highly detrimental to its interests, was beyond the power of the Committee and is not binding on the temple.

(2.) The main reliefs which the plaintiffs claim are " (a) to declare that the Committee had no power to make the alienation in question, (b) that alienation of the right in question is invalid and not binding on the temple, (c) to direct that the trustee or the manager duly appointed should retain the right of collecting the hundis in question" ( hundi is the receptacle in which the offerings are put). The trustee has not been impleaded in the suit. No sanction was obtained under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code either of the Advocate-General or of the Collector and the question for our opinion is whether, without it the suit which is instituted by two of the worshippers on behalf of themselves and the other worshippers with the leave of the Court obtained under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, can be maintained.

(3.) Section 92 of the present Civil Procedure Code corresponds to Section 539 of the old Code with some difference. One important change is embodied in sub Section 2 of Section 92, which says "save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, no suits claiming any of the reliefs specified in Sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity to the provisions of that section." This has made clear what was formerly the subject of conflicting decisions, viz., that if the object of a suit is to obtain any relief of the specified description it will be entertained only if the conditions mentioned in the section are fulfilled.