AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.—The appellant in this second appeal is defendant 1 and he was sued by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of
the suit land as a tenant thereof. It is clear that the land pertained to the Kallur Devaswom as the trustee of which the original plaintiff Kappiyur
Swamiyar instituted the action. The plaintiff described himself also as the Muppil Sthanam in the Naduvil Madham. It is admitted before us that
shortly after the institution of this suit the Durbar of the Maharajah of Cochin removed the plaintiff from his office as trustee of the Naduvil
Madham. The Durbar also purported to appoint in his place in the said Madham one Azhakapra Swamiyar who is now respondent 6 in this
second appeal. He was added as respondent in the lower appellate Court not on any application by him under Rule 10, Order 22, Civil P.C. or
any other provision of law, but, so far as we are able to see, by the Court itself suo motu. The learned District Judge appears to have made such
an order because of his having in connexion with some other litigation come to the conclusion that the said Azhakapra Swamiyar had succeeded
not only to the trusteeship of the Nadhuvil Madham, but also to the trusteeship of another Devaswom in respect of which the plaintiff had been the
trustee. It is clear that the learned District Judge made the order only because of the view taken by him that his removal from all the rest. But we
find on appeal to the High Court this Court set aside that order in the other litigation holding that, having regard to the usage of the particular
institution concerned there, the removal of the Kappiyur Swamiyar from his trusteeship of the Nadhuvil Madham did not operate as a removal of
him from the trusteeship of the particular Devaswom concerned.
A decree having been passed in favour of the plaintiff it has on this second appeal been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that
the only point proposed to be raised by him was that it was incompetent to the original plaintiff Kappiyur Swamiyar to continue the action after his
removal from office and that the decree should have been passed only in favour of the present respondent 6. No doubt it has not been determined
in these proceedings whether or not the original plaintiff Kappiyur Swamiyar has ceased to be the trustee of Kallur Devaswom by reason of his
removal from office as the trustee of the Naduvil Madham. If it were necessary, it could be determined only by determining the usage with regard
to this particular Devaswom; and if such a question were required to be determined for the disposal of this second appeal, we should have been
constrained to remand the question for determination by the lower Courts. But in the view we have taken of the case it is unnecessary to come to
any finding with regard thereto. Respondent 6, Azhakarpra Swamiyar, has not, as already pointed out, come in as a party to the suit on any
application by him under Rule 10, Order 22, asking the leave of the Court to continue the suit as the person on whom the trusteeship has
developed during the pendency of the suit. We must, therefore, take it that the suit is still only by the original plaintiff, and the only question that
arises in that view is whether a trustee who files an action which is properly framed and constituted at the time of its institution ceased to be entitled
to maintain and continue the suit merely by reason of his removal from office during the pendency of the suit.
No doubt, the language of Rule 10 with regard to that matter is not as explicit as might be desired. But it seems to us that the expression "" by
leave of the Court "" in that rule indicates clearly the real intention of the legislature to have been that it was merely optional on the part of the
assignee to apply to continue the suit and it is also in the discretion of the Court to allow him to do so or not. No doubt, the word ""continue"" is the
word used, and that word may indicate under certain circumstances the proceedings stopping otherwise. But there is no indication that such was
the real intention of the legislature. If it had been the real intention of the legislature that there should be a sort of abatement on any such assignment
or devolution taking place, it is inconceivable that the legislature should have used such an expression as ""by leave of the Court, "" and there is also
no doubt that, if such had been the intention, provision would have been made for the assignee being brought on the record and provision made
also for default in doing so as has been made in the case of insolvency or in the case of the death of a party. It is, however, unnecessary, to discuss
the question at any great length. The question is really covered by distinct authority. We need only refer to the decision of Rai Charan v. Biswa
Nath [1915] 20 Cri.L.J. 107. We may also refer to the observations in the case of Sivakasi Viswanathaswami Devasthanam and Others Vs.
Koodalinga Nadan and Others, and in Thirumalai Pillai and Others Vs. Arunachella Padayachi and Others, .
Our attention has been called by the learned Counsel for the appellant to the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1927 57
(Privy Council) , but that decision has no application to the present case because there, though the original party continued on the record, his
assignee was also allowed to come in under the provisions of the CPC and thereafter it is clear that, having regard to the terms of the rule he would
be the person entitled to continue all further proceedings. The case in Veeraraghava Reddi v. Subbu Reddi [1920] 43 Mad. 37, is also to similar
effect. It follows, therefore, that there was no disability on the part of the original plaintiff to continue the action merely because during the
pendency of the suit his office ceased. In all such cases the policy of the law is that the decree that may be obtained by him will enure for the
benefit of the trust itself and may be enforced as against him by his successor if there be one. In the result the second appeal fails and is dismissed.
We consider it also necessary in this case to pass an order formally striking out respondent 6 from the record. It is clear that he was. made a party
to the appeal by the lower Court merely acting on the conclusion arrived at by the learned District Judge in some other proceeding. In any case,
such striking out would really be in the interests of defendant 6 himself because he can enforce his rights if any, only in separate proceedings. His
name, therefore, will be struck out from the record and there will be no order as to his costs. The memo of objections filed by him is also
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs thereof. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.