Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are in occupation of the suit premises with leave and license of the trustee of the temple, and as the defendants refused to deliver possession of the property, the suit has been instituted for a declaration that the property belongs to the first plaintiff and for possession. The reliefs, it is clear, have been asked by the trustee of the temple on behalf of the Trust.

2. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds, one of their contentions being that plaintiffs 2 and 3 being trustees of the 1st plaintiff, they arc not entitled to institute the suit under Section 50 of the Act. The court below following the decision in Gana-pathi Ram Naik v. Kumta Shri Venka-taraman Dev, 1964-1 Mys LJ 172 upheld that contention and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiffs have preferred the above appeal to this Court.

3. Honniah and Venkataramiah JJ. before whom the appeal came up for hearing were of the opinion that the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Ganapathi Ram Naik's case, requires reconsideration for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 of the Order of reference, which reads as follows:

"As already stated, this court in the decision referred to above held that the trustee or a manager of a trust is an interested person but in saying so this court held that such a person will have larger interest than others. The word 'interest' in the definition denotes an interest which is substantial and not sentimental or remote. Therefore, if that is the intendment of the Act, in our opinion, a trustee is a person vitally interested in the trust and for recovering the trust properties held by trespassers, he would be the proper person to bring a suit for declaration and for recovery of trust property under Section 50 of the Act."

10. It appears to us from the reasons given in paragraph 5 of the Order of reference that it was urged before the Division Bench that the effect of the decision in Ganapathi Ram Naik's case is to deny the right of the trustees to institute suits for recovering the trust properties held by trespassers. A careful reading of the judgment of Somnath lyer, J. (as he then was) does not leave scope for any such inference. That was a case in which a suit was brought on behalf of a temple to recover rent from its tenant. The suit was resisted by the tenant on the ground that the consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act not having been taken, the suit was incompetent. The said objection was overruled and the suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal against the said decree was also dismissed by the District Court. The said decree was challenged by the tenant in a revision petition to this Court. Govinda Bhat, J. (one of us) before whom the matter came, did not agree with the view taken by Hegde, J. (as he then was) in Shri Marikamba Temple v. Subraya Venkata-ramanappa (1958) 36 Mys LJ 923, wherein it was held that even a suit by a deity for possession is governed by Section 50 of the Act.

On a reference made by Govinda Bhat, J. the revision petition was heard by a Bench consisting of Somnath lyer and Gopivallabha lyengar. JJ. Their Lordships dissented from the view taken by Hegde, J. in Shri Marikamba Temple's case, (1958) 36 Mys LJ 923 and held that the suit filed by the deity was not governed by Section 50 of the Act. It is clear from the facts of that case that the suit was filed by the deity for vindicating its own personal rights. Such a suit by a deity or by the trustees is not governed by Section 50 of the Act. On the facts of that case, we are of opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench was right. But. with respect, we are unable to agree with the reasons given by Somnath lyer, J. in Ganapathi Ram Naik's case, 1964-1 Mys LJ 172 for holding that Section 50 of the Act does not govern such suits. Dealing with this aspect, this is what Somnath lyer, J. has observed in that decision: