Case: Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass Vs. Som Dass (Deceased) Through His Chela Shiamdass

appellant was entitled to be in possession of the properties. As already stated the contention of the defendant was that though the properties belonged to the Dera, he was its lawfully appointed mahant and that the appellant had no right to recover possession of the property of the Dera. When Som Dass died, the interest which was the subject matter of the suit, devolved upon Shiam Das as he was elected to be the Mahant of the Dera and the appeal could be continued under Q. 22, r. 10, of the Civil Procedure Code against the person upon whom the interest had devolved.6. Order 22, rule 10 reads:"R. 10(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal there from shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule (1)."This rule is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the Court. When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order 22, rule 10 and not rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other reason. Order 22, rule 10, is not confined to devolution of interest of a party by death, it also applies if the head of the mutt or manager of the temple resigns his office or is removed from office. In such a case the successor to the head of the mutt or to the manager of the temple may be substituted as a party under this rule. The word interest which is mentioned in this rule means interest in the property i.e., the subject matter of the suit and the interest is the interest of the person who was the party to the suit.7. It was, however, contended on behalf of the respondent that there was no devolution of the interest in the subject matter of the suit on the death of Som Dass, since there was no certainty as to the person who would be elected as mahant to succeed him. The argument was that it was uncertain on the death of Som Dass as to who would become the mahant by election, that it was only when a person succeeded to the mahantship on the death of a previous mahant by virtue of law or custom that there would be devolution of interest in the subject matter of the suit and, therefore, Order 22, rule 10, would not be attracted. We see no force in this argument. We are of the view that devolution of the interest in the subject matter of the suit took place when Shiam Dass was elected as mahant of the Dera after the death of Som Dass.Som Dass was sued in his capacity as a person who claimed (though illegally according to the appellant) as mahant of the Dera. Som Dass contended that he was lawfully appointed as mahant of the Dera. He never set up any claim which was adverse to the Dera or its properties. The suit against Som Dass was not in his personal capacity but in his capacity as de facto mahant. In other words, the suit was for possession and management of the Dera and the properties appertaining to it by the appellant purporting to be the de jure mahant against Som Dass as de facto mahant. The fact that it was after Som Dass died that Shiam Dass was elected to be the mahant of the Dera can make no difference when we are dealing with the question whether the interest in the subject matter of the suit devolved upon him. The subject matter of the suit was t he interest of Som Dass in the Dera and its properties and it devolved upon shiam Dass by virtue of his election as mahant subsequent to the death of Som Dass. And, as it was in a representative capacity that Som Dass was sued and as it was in the same representative capacity that the appeal was sought to be continued against Shiam Dass, Order 22, rule 10 will apply(1). In Thirumalai v. Arunachella (2) the Court held that a succeeding trustee of a trustee who filed a suit and thereafter died during its pendency was not legal representative of the predecessor in office. The Court said that where some of the trustees die or retire during the pendency of a suit and new persons are elected to fill their place, it is a case of devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit and the elected persons can be added as parties under Order 22, rule 10 notwithstanding that the period of limitation for impleading them had expired.8. In Roshan Lal v. Kapur Chand the Court took the view that newly appointed trustees are not legal representatives of the trustees who had filed the suit and thereafter died during the pendency of the suit, that they can be added as parties under Order 22, rule 10 notwithstanding the fact that the period of limitation for an application to impleaded them under Order 22, rule 3 had elapsed. The Court said (at p. 384):"Such an application is obviously not an application under O. 22, R. 3 Civil Procedure Code."9. We also see no reason why the High Court should not have granted leave to the appellant to prosecute the appeal.10.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We do not think that the view of the High Court was correct. The suit was filed on the basis that the appellant as the lawfully appointed mahant was entitled to manage the properties of the Dera at Landeke, that the defendant was unlawfully claiming to be the mahant of the Dera and entitled to manage the properties of the D era, and that the appellant was entitled to be in possession of the properties. As already stated the contention of the defendant was that though the properties belonged to the Dera, he was its lawfully appointed mahant and that the appellant had no right to recover possession of the property of the Dera. When Som Dass died, the interest which was the subject matter of the suit, devolved upon Shiam Das as he was elected to be the Mahant of the Dera and the appeal could be continued under Q. 22, r. 10, of the Civil Procedure Code against the person upon whom the interest hadsee no force in this argument. We are of the view that devolution of the interest in the subject matter of the suit took place when Shiam Dass was elected as mahant of the Dera after the death of Som Dass.Som Dass was sued in his capacity as a person who claimed (though illegally according to the appellant) as mahant of the Dera. Som Dass contended that he was lawfully appointed as mahant of the Dera. He never set up any claim which was adverse to the Dera or its properties. The suit against Som Dass was not in his personal capacity but in his capacity as de facto mahant. In other words, the suit was for possession and management of the Dera and the properties appertaining to it by the appellant purporting to be the de jure mahant against Som Dass as de facto mahant. The fact that it was after Som Dass died that Shiam Dass was elected to be the mahant of the Dera can make no difference when we are dealing with the question whether the interest in the subject matter of the suit devolved upon him. The subject matter of the suit was t he interest of Som Dass in the Dera and its properties and it devolved upon shiam Dass by virtue of his election as mahant subsequent to the death of Som Dass. And, as it was in a representative capacity that Som Dass was sued and as it was in the same representative capacity that the appeal was sought to be continued against Shiam Dass, Order 22, rule 10 willalso see no reason why the High Court should not have granted leave to the appellant to prosecute the appeal.