Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. N. Gurtu and S. N. Dwivedi, JJ.
BEHARI LAL - Appellant
Versus
THAKUR RADHA BALLABH JI - Respondents
First Appeal 151 Of 1948
Decided On : 12/21/1959
HINDU LAW - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - ALIENATION BY MANAGER - BENEFIT OF ESTATE - ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION - REPRESENTATION OF IDOL BY NEXT FRIEND.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for recovery of property and mesne profit by the idol Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji through Yasodanandan as next friend. The plaintiff alleged that house No. 49/54 belonged to the plaintiff and was purchased out of the plaintiff's fund by defendant No. 2 Lala Jagannath as Manager and sarvarakar of the plaintiff. Jagannath Prasad later executed a sale deed in respect of the partitioned portion No. 49/54, in favour of L. Behari Lal the contesting defendant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- with the allegation that house No. 49/54 was in a dilapidated condition and needed to be rebuilt and that out of the sale proceeds some other newly constructed property would be purchased by jagannath Prasad as Sarvarakar of the temple. The sale-deed was executed for an inadequate consideration. There was no authority in jagannath Prasad to sell the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property in suit was purchased out of the funds which belonged to the plaintiff idol, that it was proved that there was a duly constituted endowment and the property in dispute was a dedicated property, and that there was no flaw in the constitution of the dedication. It was held that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as recited in the deed had been paid by the vendee and that the document of sale was not without consideration but it was held that the consideration was not adequate and the full price of the property was more than Rs. 11,000/- or Rs. 12,000/-. The entire story of Jagannath Prasad in regard to the scheme behind the sale of the portion in suit and of the mortgagee rights was disbelieved as also the version that the money paid by Behari lal in respect of the sale consideration was returned. It was further held that in any case, there was no unavoidable necessity for the transfer of the house No. 49/54 in suit, and therefore, it was beyond the competence of Jagannath Prasad as Manager to pass a conveyance of sale. It was held that Jasodanandan was entitled to bring the suit in the name of the idol as its next friend. It was held that there was no estoppel against the plaintiff.
Issues: 1. Whether the transaction was for the benefit of the estate and within the competence of the manager? 2. Whether the sale consideration was adequate? 3. Whether Jasodanandan had the right to represent the plaintiff and bring the suit through himself as next friend?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transaction was not for the benefit of the estate and was beyond the competence of the manager. The house was not in a dilapidated condition and there was no real risk of subsidence so as to destroy its value for the idol as an investment. The sale price received in 1942 was somewhat higher than the sale price fixed in 1932, showing that the house had not gone down in value. The re-investment of Rs. 10,000/- was likely to diminish the income, and a far larger amount would have been required to maintain the same income. 2. The court held that the sale consideration was inadequate. The learned Judge had taken judicial notice of the fact that prices in Kanpur were going up and that in some cases relating to properly in Kanpur decided by the High Court 20 to 35 times the annual rent was accepted as criteria for judging the market value. The figure of Rs. 17,000/- or 18,000/- would also be arrived at on the basis of the sale price obtained for the contiguous separated portion No. 49/53. 3. The court held that Jasodanandan had the right to represent the plaintiff and bring the suit through himself as next friend. A person who has a beneficial interest in the temple property can take steps to see that the temple property is preserved to the idol and to file a suit for that purpose as the next friend Of the deity bringing the suit in the name of the deity himself.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal of Lala Behari Lal the contesting defendant in the suit for recovery of property and mesne profit. The plaintiff is the idol, Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji and sues through Yasodanandan as next friend. The plaint allegation is that house No. 49/54 belonged to the plaintiff. The said house was a partitioned portion of a bigger building of which the other partitioned portion bore No. 49/53. The plaintiff was not the proprietor of house No. 49/53 but he had acquired the mortgagee rights thereof. The partitioned portion No. 49/54 (also referred to as house in this judgment) had been bought by the plaintiff out of the plaintiffs fund by defendant No. 2 Lala Jagannath as Manager and sarvarakar of the plaintiff. Jagannath Prasad later executed a sale deed dated 13-1-1942 in respect of the partitioned portion No. 49/54, of which the plaintiff was in proprietary possession, in favour of L. Behari Lal the contesting defendant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- with the allegation that house No. 49/54 was in a dilapidated condition and needed to be rebuilt and that out of the sale proceeds some other newly constructed property would be purchased by jagannath Prasad as Sarvarakar of the temple. The aforesaid statement was incorrect and was incorporated in the sale-deed in order to give it validity. The sale-deed was executed for an inadequate consideration. There was no authority in jagannath Prasad to sell the property. The plaint further alleged that the sale of house No. 49/54 was made by Lala Jagannath Prasad to Lala Behari Lal according to the story of Lala Jagannath prasad, defendant No. 2 under an agreement brought about for the following reasons:
( 2 ) JAGANNATH Prasad was anxious to require the equity of redemption for the idol of the portion bearing No. 49/53 of which it was the mortgagee but the proprietor of portion No. 49/53 was unwilling to dispose of the equity of redemption in its favour. It was, therefore, agreed between jagannath Prasad and Lala Behari Lal that Jagannath Prasad would transfer the mortgagee rights of No. 49/53 and also transfer the proprietary right of No. 49/54 in order that Lala Behari Lal having acquired both the rights in the compact house consisting of portions Nos. 49/53 and 49/54 would be able to purchase the equity of redemption of portion No. 49/53 with the result that if these sales came through the entire block comprising of Nos. 49/54 and 49/53 would have been acquired. The arrangement was that thereafter there would be a division of the property or apportionment of the profits in case the compact block was subsequently sold. The plaint stated that if the story of defendant No. 2 was held to be correct, even then the sale deed dated 13-1-1942 executed by jagannath Prasad defendant No. 2 in favour of Behari Lal was null and void and ineffectual as against the proprietary rights of the plaintiff. The plaint further alleged that since Jagannath prasad was not safeguarding the rights of the plaintiff, the suit was being brought through jasodanandan who was a worshipper of the idol and came, for Darshan and took interest in the management of the idol.
( 3 ) JAGANNATH Prasad, the pro forma defendant No. 2 filed a written statement and by paras 16 and 17 of his written statement set out the story which had been alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The contesting defendant Lala Behari Lal also entered defence. He set up the case that portion no. 49/54 did not constitute the property of the idol but was the private property of Jagannath prasad purchased by the latter out of his own funds. It was further pleaded that house No. 49/54 was in such a dilapidated condition that its required rebuilding but its rebuilding or even its temporary repairs would have required a large amount of money. Due to war conditions, the house as it stood could fetch a reasonably good price which could be invested in purchasing substitute profitable property. Jagannath Prasad (defendant No.
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
