A.P. SEN, J.

This was a suit brought by Shrideo Janki Raman through its Mohatminkar for eviction of the defendant under section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1931. The Courts below have decreed the suit. The appeal came up for hearing before Naik J., and he referred the case to a larger Bench for examining the correctness of the view expressed by Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop v. Deity Radhakishan etc. 1963 MPLJ 46. One of the questions that arose in the appeal was whether in a suit by a public trust registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 all the trustees must join in filing the suit or whether the suit by one of the trustees was competent. Bhargava J., in Agarwal Hosiery Shop's case (supra), after making a contrast between rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that a trustee could represent the beneficiaries and it was, therefore, not necessary to join all the trustees.

With great respect to the learned Judge, the view that all trustees need not join in a suit can hardly be supported. In President Badri Narayan v. Gulam Rasool Fakhruddin 1969 MPLJ 77, one of us (Sen J.,) had occassion to deal with the question. There, the suit was brought by one of the trustees as representing "Shri Rajulal Trust" which was registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 for reimbursement. It was pleaded by the defendants that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. Due to this, the trustee applied under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to continue the suit in a representative capacity as representing all the trustees. That application, however, was rejected on the ground that no prior permission of the Court had been obtained. But while refusing the application, the Court observed that the trustee could apply under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code for impleading other trustees as co-plaintiffs in the suit. While dealing with the question, it was observed:

The Trust admittedly is a Public Trust, and the suit could have been instituted in its name, if there was a provision in the M.P. Public Trusts Act enabling a Public Trust to sue in its name. Perhaps, the plaintiff felt that in the absence of such a provision the suit had to be brought in his own name. In making that assumption, the plaintiff committed an honest mistake. The suit had to be brought under Order 1, rule 8 or in the name of the co-trustees as in the case of a private trust.

There is obviously a lacuna in the M. P. Public Trusts Act in that unlike other enactments, it nowhere provides that upon registration of a Public Trust under the provisions of the Act, the Trust will have a legal personality, capable of instituting and defending suits and other legal proceedings in its name..........

It is true that section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 forbids trial of a suit on behalf of a public trust, which expression by the definition of "public trust" contained in section 2(4) includes a temple, unless the public trust is registered. It is common ground that the temple in which the idol of Shrideo Janki Raman is installed together with all its endowed properties, is registered as a public trust. But the temple is not a legal person and is incapable of suing. The suit had to be instituted and prosecuted in the name of a legal person capable of suing. The plaintiff-deity in whom the property was vested alone could have brought the suit. No doubt, the idol is itself a juridical person with the power of suing and sued. See Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and another ILR 52 Cal. 809. In Jagadindra Nath v. Hemanta Kumari Debi ILR 32 CAL. 129 PC, their Lordships stated the legal postion as follows:

There is no doubt that an idol may be regarded as a juridical person capable as such of holding property, though it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held.

Dealing with the position of the shebait of such an idol, their Lordships proceed