Idol's property suit not barred by public trust procedure when the shebait acts adversely and refuses to sue.
A suit by an idol for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property held under an allegedly void alienation was outside section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because it enforced the idol's private right to recover its own property rather than seeking one of the enumerated public trust reliefs. Where the shebait acts adversely to the idol's interest or refuses to sue, a worshipper interested in the endowment may represent the idol and maintain proceedings to protect the idol's property. The suit was therefore maintainable, and the section 92 objection failed.
Issues: (i) whether the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by the idol was barred by section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether a worshipper could represent the idol and maintain a suit for recovery of the idol's property when the shebait acted adversely to its interest.
Issue (i): whether the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by the idol was barred by section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Section 92 applies only where the trust is for public religious or charitable purposes, there is breach of trust or need for court directions, and the relief claimed is one of the enumerated reliefs. A suit by an idol seeking declaration of title and possession of property held under an allegedly void alienation is not one of the reliefs covered by section 92. Such a suit is also one for enforcement of the idol's private right to recover its property from unlawful possession.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by section 92.
Issue (ii): whether a worshipper could represent the idol and maintain a suit for recovery of the idol's property when the shebait acted adversely to its interest.
Analysis: An idol is a juristic person, but ordinarily acts through its shebait. Where the shebait refuses to act or acts adversely to the idol's interest, the law recognises representation by another person interested in the endowment. A worshipper, especially one assisting in the temple's management, may be clothed with an ad hoc authority to protect the idol's property and bring proceedings for its recovery. Such a course avoids leaving the idol without effective remedy when the shebait's default itself is in issue.
Conclusion: The suit could validly be maintained by the idol represented by the worshipper.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the suit was maintainable and the challenge based on section 92 was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a shebait acts adversely to an idol's interest and fails to sue for recovery of the idol's property, a worshipper interested in the endowment may represent the idol to enforce its private right, and a suit for declaration of title and possession is outside the scope of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
