This suit was instituted under Sect. 14 of the Religious Endowments Act by 3 persons acting in a representative capacity. The decree obtained in the High Court on appeal was for the recovery of a certain sum of money as damages on behalf of the temple. Two out of the three plaintiffs are still alive and there has been no devolution of their interest upon the respondents. The District Judge's order does not purport to be one made under O. 22, R. 10 and it is therefore not necessary for us to consider the applicability of that rule.
The District Judge has ordered the respondents to be brought on the record as decree-holders because they represent the temple in their capacity as trustees and because it is in the interests of the trust that the decree should be executed, the original decree-holder having neglected to enforce it for over five years.
It may be unusual to bring fresh plaintiffs on the record after a decree has been passed, but there is authority for doing so under O. 1, R. 10 in Vakatchand Lakshmi-chand v. Advocate General et al and in Lingammal v. Venkatammal although it might be improper and inconvenient in particular cases to add defendants after decree and to allow proceedings to be taken against them in execution, Goodall v. The Mussoorie Bank Ltd.. On the contrary it was held in Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap that the power of the Court to add parties depends on whether the questions arising in the case are still sub judice. That may be a sound principle in suits where no other interests are involved but those of the individual plaintiffs and defendants.
In a representative suit however like the present, as observed in Krishnamachariar v. Chinnammal, all the members of the class are in effect parties to the suit and any one of them is entitled to bring himself on the record as an actual party (see also Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Arayar Srinivasa Aiyangar.
O. 1, R. 8 expressly permits any person on whose behalf a representative suit is instituted to apply to the Court to be brought on the record, and the words of this rule are not limited, as they are by O. 1, R. 10 by the purpose being expressed as that of adjudication on the questions arising in the suit. In Prayag Doss Ji Varu Mahan v. Tirumala Srirangacharlavaru(7) which was a scheme suit, it was held that persons interested might enforce in execution the directions in the scheme.
The principle involved is the same here, and we therefore consider that the District Judge acted properly in bringing the respondents on the record.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
S. S.Appeal dismissed..
Comments