VEDAKANNU NADAR Vs. NANGUNERI TALUK SINGIKULAM ANNADANA CHATRAM THROUGH ITS HUKTDARS MEDAI DALAVOI RANGANATHA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two suits for ejectment, out of which these appeals arise, were filed in the name of a public charity known as Nanguneri Taluk Singikulam Annadana Chatram by the plaintiff as a huqdar (which is here used for a manager of a trust) sometime in 1921 against a number of tenants and were decreed by the Subordinate Judge in March, 1935. Having regard to the fact that the suits were filed on behalf of a charity, which was neither registered nor a juristic entity, it is fairly obvious that they could not proceed, but since they have gone on for this length of time and even succeeded in the trial Court, it may well be argued that the defect was one of wrong description merely and should not be allowed to prevail at this stage. We have therefore decided to go into the other question relating to the right of the plaintiff and after his death, which occurred while the suits were still pending, to that of his heirs to institute and maintain these actions.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for this purpose may be shortly stated. These properties appear to have belonged to one family at one time and were endowed for the purpose of a chatram (which may be regarded as a Dharmasala or an inn) long ago. The origin of the endowment is lost in obscurity. The parties however agree that the properties belonging to this family were divided in three shares. The plaintiff and one Alagappa Mudaliar claimed 5/12 and 6/12 out of these properties respectively while defendant 1 stated that she was entitled to 2/12. Some arrangement appears to have been arrived at between them in regard to these shares but we are not concerned here with what was allotted to each of them. It appears that following the arrangement regarding their private properties, these three branches managed this charity and considered themselves to be entitled as huqdars in the endowed properties to the same extent until 10th February, 1914, when Alagappa Mudaliar assigned his rights in those properties to the original plaintiff in consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,300. In view of the present contention raised on behalf of the parties, I shall have to examine this document in its appropriate place. To resume the narrative, it appears that Alagappa took no interest in the management and in view of the transfer effected in 1914, the original plaintiff instituted these suits for ejectment in 1921 in which the huqdar of 1/12 interest in the endowed property was impleaded as first defendant but Alagappa or his heirs, as he is also said to have died subsequently, leaving three sons behind him and who are stated to be alive even now, were neither impleaded as plaintiffs nor as defendants.

(3.) The only question that we have now been called upon to decide is, if Alagappa or his sons were necessary parties to the suit and whether in their absence, these suits could be maintained. This objection was specifically raised by the defendants in their written statements and having been decided against them by the lower Court, it has been again taken in the grounds of appeals and pressed before us. In fact, the learned Counsel for the appellant has argued this as a preliminary point and has stated that it would be unnecessary to go into others if we agreed with this contention of his. He urges that it was absolutely necessary for the original plaintiff and his heirs to implead Alagappa and his heirs as plaintiffs and if he or they refused to join as such, he or they should have been added at least as defendants. But the plaintiffs refused to join them either as plaintiffs or defendants and it is therefore contended that the present plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain these actions in their absence.