THAKUR PRATAP SINGH Vs. LBRIJNATH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Agra, dated 13 May 1936, allowing an application of the respondents made under Section 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (Act 14 of 1920). The first point taken is that the applicant had no interest in this trust. The learned Judge has found that the applicant is a worshipper at the temple, is a resident of the locality, and a member of the same caste as that of the deceased founder. It is also clear that if the income of the trust is to be spent on charitable purposes, then the applicant can have an interest in the trust and is certainly entitled to see that it is duly administered. The question is mainly one of fact, and we would not entertain this point in revision. Another point taken is that one of the trustees, Dr. Raja Earn, was not impleaded and accordingly there is a non-compliance with the imperative provisions of Order 31, Rule 2, under which where there are several trustees they shall all be made parties to the suit.

(2.) It is contended that these provisions are applicable to this case by virtue of Section 141, Civil P.C., which would make them applicable so far as they can be. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that there is also Order 1, Rule 9, under which no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. In the present case, however, it is not necessary to decide whether there has been any defect of non-joinder, for it appears that Dr. Baja. Bam wag duly served. The order in the order sheet is to the effect that summons was given to him personally, but he refused to take it, and on the report of the process server, the Court held that the service was sufficient and started ex parte proceedings. At a later stage, he appeared before the Court in person and wanted to know whether the applicant would make him a party. The applicant had already got summons issued to him because of an objection taken by the other defendants that he had been left out. We may also note that his own son appeared as advocate for the contesting defendants. We do not think that there has been any material irregularity in the procedure which would justify interference in revision.

(3.) The main point is whether the Court had at all jurisdiction under Act 14 of 1920, the contention being that the Act is not applicable to this trust. The trust was created under a will dated 22 July, 1911. After reciting that he would remain the absolute owner of the property in his lifetime, the testator provided that after the payment of a certain specified debt, a temple should be established in the house known as bungalow, and the idol of Thakur Madan Mohan should be installed in it and a pujari maintained, and the trustees should make arrangements about rajbhog from time to time. The next paragraph of the will provides how the income is to be spent and lays down that the said expenses (the arrangement about rajbhog, etc.) with the pay of the pujari, etc., should be fixed at Rs. 30 per mensem and Bs. 10 per mensem are to be given as maintenance to Mt. Devi, his widow for her life. The deed then says that from the remaining income of the property a Chhatra is to be established in the said temple and according to the opinion of the Committee of trustees the Abhyagats are to be fed or flour and gram are to be distributed.