Case: Bishwanath And Anr Vs. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji &amp; Ors

2. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji, the deity, represented by Yasodanandan as next friend, filed O. S. No. 61 of 1946 in the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur, against the appellants for a declaration that the deity was the proprietor of house No. 49/54 situate in Ban Bazar in the City of Kanpur, for possession thereof and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) was that Lala Jagan Prasad, the 2nd defendant to the suit, was the manager and Sarvarakar of the deity, that the said manager executed a sale-deed, dated January 13, 1942, conveying the said property to one Lala Behari Lal, the 1st defendant to the suit, for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 and that the sale, not being for necessity or for the benefit of the idol, was not binding on the deity. It was further alleged that, as the 2nd defendant had taken no steps to recover the property, in order to safeguard the rights of the idol the suit was filed through Jagan Prasad, who was one of the devotees and worshipper of the deity and who had been taking keen interest in the management of the temple where the deity is installed. To that suit the alienee was made the 1st defendant and the manager, the 2nd defendant3. The 1st defendant set up the case that the suit property did not constitute the property of the idol but was the property of the 2nd defendant purchased by him out of his own funds. He further alleged that the suit house was in a dilapidated condition, that its rebuilding would involve the idol in heavy and unprofitable expenditure, that, therefore, the second defendant as its manager, acting as a prudent man, sold the same for a good price to the 1st defendant and that, as the sale transaction was for the benefit of the idol, it would be binding on the plaintiff. He also questioned the right of Yasodanandan to represent the idol and to bring the suit on its behalf. Roth the learned 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur , in the first instance, and, on appeal, the High Court concurrently held that the sale was not for the benefit of the deity and that the consideration was not adequate. They also held that in the circumstances of the case the idol had the right to file the suit represented by Yasodanandan who was a worshipper of the deity and was helping the second defendant in the management of the temple. In the result the trial Court gave a decree for possession and for recovery of Rs. 1,400 as past mesne profits against the 1st defendant on condition that the plaintiff returned a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the 1st defendant within two months from the date of the decree and also that the plaintiff would be entitled to future mesne profits at Rs. 45 per month till the date of delivery of possession of the property. The High Court confirmed the same. Hence the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
On the questions of fact, namely, whetherthe impugned transaction was binding on the idol and was supported by consideration,we do not think we would be justified to permit the appellant to question their correctness, because the said findings are concurrent and are based upon appreciation of the relevant evidence. We accept the said findings7. It is settled law that to invoke S.92 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 3 conditions have to be satisfied, namely, (i) the trust is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, (ii) there was a breach of trust or a direction of Court is necessary in the administration of such a trust, and (iii) the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs enumerated therein. If any of the 3 conditions is not satisfied, the suit falls outside the scope of the said section. A suit by an idol for a declaration of its title to property and for possession of the same from the defendant, who is in possession thereof under a void alienation, is not one of the reliefs found in S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure. That a suit for declaration that a property belongs to a trust is held to fall outside the scope of S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure by the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali, 55 Ind App 96 : (AIR 1928 PC 16  ), and by this Court in Pragdasli Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai, 1932 SCR 513: (AIR 1952 SC 143  ), on the ground that a relief for declaration is not one of the reliefs enumerated in S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure. So too, for the same reason a suit for a declaration that certain properties belong to a trust and for possession thereof from the alienee has also been held to be not covered by the provisions of S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure: See Mukhda Mannudas Bairagi v. Chagan Kisan Bhawasar, ILR(1957) Bom 809  : (AIR 1959 Bom 491  ). Other decisions have reached the same result on a different ground, namely, that such a suit is one for the enforcement of a private right. It was held that a suit by an idol as a juristic person against persons who interfered unlawfully with the property of the idol was a suit for enforcement of its private right and was, therefore, not a suit to which S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure applied : See (Darshan La1 v. Shibji Mahraj Birajman, ILR 45 All 215 : (AIR 1923 All 120  ); and Madhavrao Anandrao v. Shri Omkareshvar Ghat, 31 Bom LR 192 : (AIR 1929 Bom 153  ). The present suit is filed by the idol for possession of its property from the person who is in illegal possession thereof and, therefore, it is a suit by the idol to enforce its private right.The suit also is for a declaration of the plaintiffs title and for possession thereof and is, therefore, not a suit for one of the reliefs mentioned in S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure. In either view, this is a suit outside the purview of S. 92 of the said Code and, therefore, the said section is not a bar to its maintainabilityThis was a case where the Shebait filed a suit for eviction from the dedicated property within three years after attaining majority and the Board held that, as he had the right to bring the suit for the protection of the dedicated property, S. 7 of the Limitation Act, 1877, would apply to him. The present question, namely, if a Shebait acts adversely to the interests of the idol whether the idol represented by a worshipper can maintain a suit for eviction, did not arise for consideration in that case. That question falls to be decided on different considerations9. Three legal concepts are well settled : (1) An idol of a Hindu temple is a juridical person; (2) when there is a Shebait, ordinarily no person other than the Shebait can represent the idol; and (3) worshippers of an idol are its beneficiaries, though only in a spiritual sense. It has also been held that persons who go in only for the purpose of devotion have according to Hindu law and religion, a greater and deeper interest in temples than mere servants who serve there for some pecuniary advantage see Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturi Ranga Ayyangar, ILR 40 Mad 212   at p. 225: (AIR 1917 Mad 112 at p. 118). In the present case, the plaintiff is not only a mere worshipper but is found to have been assisting the 2nd defendant in the management of the templeOn principle we do not see any justification for denying such a right to the worshipper. An idol is in the position of a minor and when the person representing it leaves it in a lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. It is a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to a difficult situation. Should it be held that a Shebait, who transferred the property, can only bring a suit for recovery, in most of the cases it will be an indirect approval of the dereliction of the Shebaits duty, for more often than not he will not admit his default and take steps to recover the property, apart from other technical pleas that may be open to the transferee in a suit. Should it be held that a worshipper can file only a suit for the removal of a Shebait and for the appointment of another in order to enable him to take steps to recover the property, such a procedure will be rather a prolonged and a complicated one and the interest of the idol may irreparably suffer. That is why decisions have permitted a worshipper in such circumstances to represent the idol and to recover the property for the idol. It has been held in a number of decisions that worshippers may file a suit praying for possession of a property on behalf of an endowment; see Radhabai v. Chimnaji, (1878) ILR 3 Bom 27, Zafaryab Ali v. Bakhtawar Singh, (1883) ILR 5 All 497 Chidambaranatha Thambirarn v. P. S. Nallasiva Mudaliar, 6 Mad LW 666 : (AIR 1918 Mad 464  ), Dasondhay v. Muhammad Abu Nasar, (1911) ILR 33 All 660 at p. 664: (AIR 1917 Mad 112) (FB), Radha Krishnaji v. Rameshwar Prasad Singh, AIR 1934 Pat 584  , Manmohan Haldar v. Dibbendu Prosad Roy, AIR 1949 Cal 199  11. There are two decisions of the Privy Council, namely, Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, 52 Ind App 245: (AIR 1925 PC 139  ) and Kanhaiya Lal v. Hamid Ali, 60 Ind App 263: (AIR 1933 PC 198   (1)), wherein the Board remanded the case to the High Court in order that the High Court might appoint a disinterested person to represent the idol. No doubt in both the cases no question of any deity filing a suit for its protection arose, but the decisions are authorities for the position that apart from a Shebait, under certain circumstances, the idol can be represented by disinterested persons. B. K. Mukherjea in his book "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust" 2nd Edn., summarizes the legal position by way of the following propositions, among others, at p. 249 :"(1) An idol is a juristic person in whom the title to the properties of the endowment vests. But it is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner. It has to act through human agency, and that agent is the Shebait, who is, in law, the person entitled to take proceedings on its behalf. The personality of the idol might, therefore, be said to be merged in that of the Shebait(2) Where, however, the Shebait refuses to act for the idol, or where the suit is to challenge the act of the Shebait himself as prejudicial to the interests of the idol, then there must be some other agency which must have the right to act for the idol. The law accordingly recognises a right in persons interested in the endowment to take proceedings on behalf of the idol."This view is justified by reason as well by decisions12. Two cases have been cited before us which took a contrary view. In Kunj Behari Chandra v. Shyam Chand Jiu, AIR 1938 Pat 384, it was held by Agarwala, J., that in the case of a public endowment, a part of the trust property which had been alienated by the Shebait or lost in consequence of his action could be recovered only in a suit instituted by a Shebait. The only remedy which the members of the public have, where the property had been altenated by a person who was a Shebait for the time being was to secure the removal of the Shebait by proceedings under S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure and then to secure the appointment of another Shebait who would then have authority to represent the idol in a suit to recover the idols properties. So too, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Artatran Alekhagadi Brahma v. Sudersan Mohapatra. AIR 1954 Orissa 11, came to the same conclusion. For the reasons given above, with great respect, we hold that the said two decisions do not represent the correct law on the subject.