Shrimati Ammar Devi vs Lala Hem Raj

These two applications arise out of two different suits filed before the City Judge Jammu. The two suits have been disposed of by two separate

judgements but as the point involved in them is identical I wish to dispose of both these applications by one judgement.

The suits were filed by the plaintiff as a defacto manager of a temple known as Mandir ' Shri Ram Jee to recover rents from the defendants who

are the tenants and who had executed rent deeds in favour of the plaintiff as representing the temple. Applications in both these suits were made

before the court below for staying the suits pending a previously instituted suit in which the title of the present plaintiff was being questioned. The

court below passed an order staying both the suits pending disposal of the previous suit.....

It appears to me that the discretion exercised by the court below is not at all warranted by law. In the first place, the question involved in both the

suits is essentially different. In the present two suits the simple question is as to whether defendants are liable to pay the rent having committed

defaults. The question of the plaintiff's right to manage the properties is not in issue. Moreover, it is well settled that a de facto manager of a deity

can always bring a suit for money or for the realisation of rent. Moreover, as the rent deeds have been executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is

obvious that the defendants cannot go behind the terms of the rent deeds and they cannot be allowed to raise the question of title supreme in this

rent suit, Secondly, the tenants who are the contesting defendants in the present two suits are not even parties in the previous suit. In these

circumstances, therefore, there can be no justification at all for staying the rent suits. Moreover, even if the plaintiff succeeds in realizing the rent

from the defendants and if the plaintiffs in the previous suit succeeds in proving their title, there is nothing to prevent them from realizing the rents

received by the present plaintiff either by a separate suit or by adding a prayer in the suit.

In my opinion, therefore, the court below was wrong in staying the rent suits pending the previous suit.

The applications are, therefore, allowed and the orders passed by the City Judge Jammu in both these suits are set aside and the cases are remitted

to him for disposal in accordance with law.

There will be no order as to costs