AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This suit was brought by a male reversioner to the estate of the founder of a trust for the temple of Aligia Singaperumal Kadavul to recover
property-alienated in favour of first defendant by the act of the founder''s wife, who is 2nd defendant. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was
not entitled to maintain the suit and dismissed it. The Additional Subordinate Judge was of a contrary opinion and ordered the suit to go on.
He relied on two cases, Savala Cunniah Chetly v. Thiruvengada Ramanujachariar 24 M.L.J. 348 and Kadavibi Srinivasacharlu v. Durlabha
Subuddhi 23 M.L.J. 348. Both of these decisions were given in suits instituted when the C.P.C. of 1882 was in force. When the amended Act of
1908 came into force, it contained a new provision in Clause (2) of Section 92 barring suits in respect of charitable and religious trusts without first
obtaining the permission of the Advocate General.
We have been referred in the course of the arguments to two other cases Subramania Aiyar v. Nagaratlma Naicker 5 Ind. Cas. 901 and
Rangaswami Nayudu v. Krishnaswami Aiyar 71 Ind. Cas. 463 . These were cases in which a number of persons had a common interest in a''
temple or charitable institution, and a representative suit was allowed by the Court to be brought on behalf of all, u/s 30 of the Code of 1882 (now
Order I, Rule 8). When a village temple is owned in common by all the villagers of a certain village, this is the proper form of suing. In the present
case the founder of the trust appointed himself as manager during his lifetime and his heirs after his death. His widow, who is second defendant, is
his nearest heir, and as she alienated the trust property, she cannot be transposed as plaintiff. The reversioner cannot claim at present to be trustee.
The proper course is for the plaintiff, together with one or more interested persons, after obtaining the required sanction u/s 92 to sue for 2nd
defendant''s removal from the trusteeship, and for appointment of himself or some other fit person to be trustee in her place. In such a suit the
validity of the alienation could be decided.
The person who becomes trustee or a receiver appointed in the suit may then sue on behalf of the idol for the recovery of the property
improperly diverted from trust purposes. It is suggested that we might allow some time for the plaintiff to apply and get permission to proceed
either under Order I, Rule 8 or u/s 92, C.P.C., but we think that this cannot be done, as this would alter the nature of the suit. The appeal is
accordingly allowed with costs: to be paid by 1st respondent in this Court and the lower Appellate Court, and the decree of the District Munsif
dismissing the suit with costs is restored; 2nd respondent to bear her own costs.