Summary
The Supreme Court restored a trust’s decree against a temple sevadar, holding that the special procedure under Section 92 CPC did not govern this suit brought by the trust itself. The deceased sevadar’s legal representative acquired no larger interest through substitution, and had not proved appointment as his chela. The Court separately held that the personal decree for rendition of accounts could not be executed after the sevadar’s death.
Issues
- Whether Section 92 CPC rendered the trust’s own suit against its sevadar unmaintainable.
- What rights and liabilities remained after substitution of the deceased sevadar’s representative.
Provisions considered
- Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The procedure concerning relief for breach or administration of a public trust did not apply to this suit instituted by the trust against its sevadar. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- The High Court erred in applying Section 92 to defeat the suit: the trust itself was the plaintiff seeking relief against a sevadar, rather than persons invoking the special jurisdiction against the trust. The suit was maintainable and had rightly been decreed by the First Appellate Court. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The deceased had admitted his status as sevadar. Substitution in the appeal did not give his representative a greater interest, and no appointment as chela was proved; he could offer service only as a member of the public. The decree for rendition of accounts was personal to the deceased and could no longer be executed after his death. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 12)
- Apprehension that acquisition compensation would be misused was outside the scope of this suit and appeal. The appellant’s registration as a society also entailed statutory obligations. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s decision on the first substantial question of law set aside and the suit decreed. The Court clarified that the accounts decree could not be executed after the original defendant’s death.