Absolute dedication to deity and fresh cause of action defeated the Order 9 Rule 9 CPC bar.

Deeds of dedication were construed as a whole, and the language of the arpannama was treated as an outright dedication of the properties to the deity rather than a mere charge for debsheba; the properties were therefore debutter properties. The earlier suit did not bar the present suit under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC because it had been instituted in the name of the idol by a next friend without legal authority, and a Hindu idol ordinarily must sue through a shebait or properly appointed representative. The Court also treated the present claim as arising from a fresh attempt to execute against the deity's property, giving rise to a new cause of action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the properties comprised in the deeds of dedication were absolutely dedicated to the deity as debutter properties; (ii) Whether the present suit was barred by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit.

Issue (i): Whether the properties comprised in the deeds of dedication were absolutely dedicated to the deity as debutter properties.

Analysis: The deeds of dedication were construed as a whole. The language of the arpannama showed an outright dedication of the properties to the deity and not a mere charge for debsheba. Nothing in the documents reserved the beneficial ownership to the donors or their heirs in a manner inconsistent with absolute dedication. The earlier transactions and later dealings did not displace the plain import of the deeds.

Conclusion: The properties were absolutely dedicated to the deity and were debutter properties.

Issue (ii): Whether the present suit was barred by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit.

Analysis: The earlier suit was brought in the name of the idol by a next friend who was not a shebait and had no legal authority to represent the deity in that capacity. The Court held that a Hindu idol is a juristic person, but its suit must ordinarily be maintained through the shebait or a properly appointed representative. In any event, the cause of action in the present suit arose from a fresh execution attempt, distinct from the earlier threatened sale. The earlier dismissal therefore did not create a bar to the new suit.

Conclusion: The present suit was not barred by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff deity was sustained, and both appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit in the name of a Hindu idol instituted by an unauthorized next friend does not bind the idol, and a fresh invasion of the idol's property rights gives rise to a new cause of action outside the bar of Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

---