Back
Manipur High Court
T. N. R. TIRUMALPAD, J.
Radha Krishna Devata
Versus
Nathmal Mohta s/o late Bhairodan Mohta
Civil Revn. Case No. 3 of 1962
Decided On : 14-09-1962
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 33 RULE 1 - DEITY AS PERSON - SUIT IN FORMA PAUPERIS - INTERPRETATION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A deity, being a juridical person, can institute a suit, but the term "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. Explanation refers only to natural persons or human beings and not to juridical persons like deities.
Fact of the Case:
An idol, Sri Radha Krishna Devata, through its Shebait, Purnanand Sarma, applied to sue as a pauper in a suit seeking an account of income collected by the defendants and possession of certain properties. The Subordinate Judge held that the deity was a person entitled to apply under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. but rejected the application on the ground that the deity had sufficient means to pay the court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the term "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation refers only to natural persons or human beings and not to juridical persons like deities. The Court found that the provisions of Order 33 C. P. C. make it clear that it can apply only to certain persons, who are in a position to appear in Court either by themselves or through authorized agents and who are capable of being examined in Court, or on commission, if necessary.
Issues: 1. Whether a deity can be considered a "person" within the meaning of Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. Explanation and thus be allowed to sue as a pauper? 2. Whether the deity in the present case had sufficient means to pay the court fee and was therefore not entitled to sue as a pauper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the term "person" in Order 33 Rule 1 Explanation as referring only to natural persons or human beings and not to juridical persons like deities. The Court reasoned that the provisions of Order 33 C. P. C., particularly Rules 3 and 4, indicate that the concession to sue as a pauper is intended for individuals who can appear in Court personally or through authorized agents and who can be examined in Court or on commission. 2. The Court found that the deity in the present case had sufficient means to pay the court fee, as evidenced by the properties and moveable assets belonging to the deity.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Subordinate Judge's finding that the deity had sufficient means to pay the court fee and was not entitled to sue as a pauper.
2. This was opposed by the contesting defendants on two grounds : (1) that under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. the plaintiff who is a deity cannot be permitted to file a suit as a pauper and (2) that even if the deity can be permitted, the deity is possessed of moveable and immoveable property worth Rs. 3 to 3½ lakhs and hence it is possessed of sufficient means to enable it to pay the Court fee of Rs. 1,500/- and odd, prescribed for the suit.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the deity is a juridical person and as such entitled to apply under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. to sue as a pauper. But he held that the deity was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee and hence the application was rejected.
4. In this revision, the petitioner contested the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the deity was possessed of sufficient means. The respondents, however, contested the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the deity was a person who could be permitted to sue as a pauper under Order 33 Rule 1 C. P. C. The respondents also maintained that the deity was possessed of sufficient means. A third contention which was pressed was that the petition was lacking in bona fides and that the suit though purporting to be filed by the deity was, in fact, filed by Purnanand Sarma, himself, to establish that he was the Shebait of the deity in order to get control of the properties of the deity from the Committee consisting of defendants 1 and 6 to 22 and further that Purnanand Sarma as the Pujari of the deity was living in a residential house belonging to the deity and was in possession of lots of moveable properties belonging to the deity worth Rs. 7,000/- in addition to the large amount which he realised by way of offerings to the deity and that all these facts have been suppressed in the Schedule to the plaint, detailing the properties of the deity and it was prayed that the petition should fail under Order 33 Rule 5 (a) of C. P. C.
5. I think this petition can be disposed of on the first question, n
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
