Deo 108 Mahavirji Temple vs Radhe - 1980 Supreme(MP) 590

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.L. Halve
For the Respondent: P.C. Verma

Headnote:(1) Trusts Act., 1951 (M.P.) – S.32 and 2 (g) – temple a registered trust – suit on behalf of idol must be brought by all trustees – one trustee may bring the suit on approval or sanction of all trustees – Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S. 12 (1).
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O – 21, R. 3 – mohatmin of the trust died – application on behalf of the deceased mohatmin submitted – application not signed by all the trustees nor signed by one trustee with the sanction of all the trustees – application for substitution not maintainable.
        Short Note
       1. The appellant is a deity registered as a public trust under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. Jagannath Prasad, as Mohatmin of the trust, on 13 – 12 – 1973 sued the respondent for possession of an accommodation let out to him and for recovery arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation thereof. The trial Court, on the authority of decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Shri Deo, Janki Raman reported in 1973 JLJ 904 dismissed the suit on the preliminary point that it was not maintainable. The dismissal was upheld in first appeal preferred by the appellant. Thereafter, on 16 – 12 – 1977, Jagannath Prasad filed this appeal as Mohatmin of the trust.
       Held: Jagannath Prasad died on 12 – 2 – 1979 An application has been filed on behalf of one Motilal for being substituted in his place. He is said to have been appointed as Mohatmin of the trust with effect from 4 – 5 – 1977 vice Jagannath Prasad. Thus admittedly, Jagannath Prasad was not holding the office of Mohatmin of the trust on the date of institution of this appeal. So, even if it is assumed that the appeal could be filed by Mohatmin of the trust, its institution by Jagannath Prasad, who had already ceased to hold that office, was bad in law. Institution of the appeal itself being invalid, in my opinion the application for substitution of Motilal in place of Jagannath Prasad cannot be allowed. Hence, the application is dismissed.
       The case reported in 1973 JLJ 904, it is clear that there also a suit was brought in the name of deity, registered as a public trust under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 by its Mohatmin for eviction of a tenant. Other trustees had neither joined in the suit nor had sanctioned or approved its institution by the Mohatmin, just as in the present case. The suit was dismissed. That decision applies to the present case with full force. The appeal must, therefore, fail. 1973 J LJ 904 relied on. Suit dismissed.