Civil Appeal No 767 of Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 14 1961 of the Rajasthan High Court in DP Civil Misc
Application No 128 of 1960
Gopi Nath Kunzru WS Barlingay and Ganpat Rai for the appellant
CB Agarwala KK Jain HK Puri and Uma Mehta for respondents Nos 3 4 5 7 12 13 15 18 21 23 and 24
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
On September 10 1955 Narain Lal Mool Chand Mangilal and Kesharichand obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General Rajasthan to institute a suit against 917 the respondents under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The consent was in these terms  For the reasons detailed above I grant permission to the applicants Sarvashri 1 Narainlal 2 Mool Chand 3 Mangilal and 4 Seth Kesharichand for filing suit against the opposite parties Shri Malilal Kasliwal and 27 other members and office holders of the executive committee Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri Mahabir Swami Temple Chandangaon for the reliefs detailed in para 28 sub paras I to 5 and 7 of the draft plaint filed by them before me
 Shortly thereafter Mangi Lal died
On March 6 1956 Narain
Lal Mool Chand and Kesari Chand instituted a suit against the respondents under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming a declaration that the temple of Shri Mahabirji at Naurangabad and the appertaining properties were a public charitable trust for the benefit of the Shwetambar Sangh of the Jain community or of the Jain community as a whole and for other reliefs
On March 9 1958 Kesari Chand died
The trial court raised and tried the following preliminary issue Whether the suit is not maintainable on the strength of the permission obtained by the plaintiffs along with Mangi Lai who died prior to the institution of the suit  The trial court held that the suit was maintainable
The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of the trial  court and held that the suit was not maintainable
The present appeal has been tiled from the order of the High Court by special leave
A suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub section
1 of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature may be instituted by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General and save as provided by the and certain other laws no suit claiming Such reliefs in respect of any such trust can be instituted except in conformity with sub section
1 of section 92
In the present case fourpersons obtained the necessary sanction of the Advocate General
one of them died before the suit was filed and the remaining three instituted the suit
The question is whether the suit is brought in conformity with section 921
The decided cases show that a suit under section 92 must be brought by all the persons to whom the sanction of the Advocate General has been given and a suit instituted by some of them 918 only is not maintainable
In Muddala Bhagayannarayana V Vadapalli Perumallacharyulu1 where the sanction was given to four persons and two of them alone brought the suit alleging that the other two had been won over by the defendants and hall refused to join as plaintiffs it was held that the suit was not maintainable
In Pitchayya and another vs Venkatakrishnamacharlu and eleven others2 where the sanction was given to three persons the court held that the suit instituted by two of them
was invalidly brought and the defect could not be cured by impleading the other person as a defendant
In Sibte Rasul vs Sibte Nabi and others1 where four persons obtained the sanction and the suit was instituted by three of them it was held that the suit was incompetent and the defect could not be cured by impleading the fourth as a plaintiff at the date of the delivery of the judgment
We may add that in Venkatesha Malia vs B Ramaya Hegade and twelve others1 where the sanction to sue under section 18 of the was given by the district judge to two persons it was held that only one of them could not institute the suit
We hold that an authority to sue given to several persons without more is a joint authority and must be acted upon by all jointly and a suit by some of them only is not competent
As Sir George Rankin said in Musammat Ali Begam vs Badr ul Islam Ali Khan1 where the consent in writing of the Advocate General or Collector is given to a suit by three persons as plaintiffs the suit cannot be validly instituted by two only
The suit as instituted must conform to the consent
Once the representative suit is validly instituted it is subject to all the incidents of such a suit the subsequent death of a plaintiff will not render the suit incompetent see Raja Anand Rao vs Ramdas Daduram6 and an appeal by some of the plaintiffs impleading the remaining plaintiff as a respondent is not incompetent because all did not join as appellants see Musammat Ali Begam vs Badr ul Islam Ali Khan 5
In Shea Ram vs Rain Chand and others  7 the sanction of the Collector to bring a suit under section 92 was given to twenty persons
One of them died before the suit was brought and the remaining nineteen instituted the suit
Skempg J held that in view of tile two Privy Council rulings the suit was validly instituted
But he erroneously assumed that in Musammat Ali Begam vs Badr ul Islam Ali Khan5 it was held that where the sanction had been given to three persons a suit by two of them only was validly 1 2 ILR 3 ILR 1943 All 112
4 1LR 38 Mad
5 ILR 65 1
A 198
6 LR 48 IA 12
7 AIR 1940 Lah
919 instituted
From the report of Raja Anand Rao vs Ramdas Daduram1 it is not clear whether all the persons to whom the sanction was given brought the suit and the point raised and decided was that the death of one of the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit did not render the suit incompetent
We are unable to agree with the Lahore ruling
Where sanction is given to four persons and one of them dies before the institution of the suit a suit by the remaining three is incompetent
Fresh sanction must be obtained by the survivors for the institution of the suit
We must hold that the suit brought by the appellants was competent
The High Court rightly held that the suit was not maintainable
This judgment will not bar the institution of a fresh suit in conformity with a fresh consent obtained from the Advocate General or Collector
In the result the appeal is dismissed without costs
GC Appeal dismissed 1 L R 48 IA 12


Summary:
Four persons obtained
the consent of the Advocate General of Rajasthan to institute a suit against the respondents under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Shortly thereafter one of the said four persons died and the suit was instituted by the three survivors
On the preliminary issue whether the suit filed by three persons when the permission had been given to
four was maintainable the trial court held that it was
The High COurt however in revision held the suit not to
be maintainable
Appeal was filed in this Court by special leave
HELD An authority to sue given to several persons without more is a joint authority and must be exercised by all jointly and a suit by some of them only is not competent
When sanction in the present case was given to
four persons and one of them died before the institution of the suit a suit by the remaining three was incompetent
Fresh sanction must be obtained by the survivors for the institution of the suit
918D E 919B  Muddala Bhagavannarayana vs Vadapalli Perumallacharyuht  Pitchayya  Anr
vs Venkatakrishnamacharlu  eleven Ors
ILR  Sibte Rasid vs Sibte Nabi  Ors
ILR 1943 All 112 Venkatesha Mafia vs B Ramaya Hegade and twelve Ors
ILR 38 Mad
1192 Musammat Ali Begam vs Badr ul Islam Ali Khan LR 65 IA 198 Raja Anand Rao vs Ramdas Daduram
LR 48 IA 12 and Sheo Ram vs Rama Chand  Ors AIR 1940 Lab 356 referred to