Skip to content

Badri NaraIn and ors. Vs. Ram Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in(1907)ILR29All27
AppellantBadri NaraIn and ors.
RespondentRam Das
civil procedure code, section 539 - applicability of section--suit brought by the whole body of persons authorized to administer the trust. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in the will to take action. it is not a suit merely by two or more persons having interest in the trust. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. appeal dismissed.

George Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1.This first appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the whole body of overseers appointed under the will of one Bisheshar Prasad and entrusted with the supervision of an endowment. They set forth in the plaint that under the terms of the will they removed the appellant from his position as manager of the trust property, and that notwithstanding his having received notice of removal he refused to vacate, to give up the papers relating to the property and to render accounts. The Court of first instance, holding that the plaintiffs could not sue until they had first obtained the consent in writing of the officer authorized under Section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court on appeal reversed the decree of the Court of first instance and remanded the case under Section 562 of the Code. From that order of remand the present appeal has been filed, and it is contended that the decision of the Court of first instance was right and that the suit was not maintainable without the consent referred to above. We have heard the learned vakil who appears in support of the appeal. In our opinion the view taken by the Court below was the right view. As pointed out by Woodroffe, J., in Rai Budree Das Mukim Bahadur v. Chuni Lal Johurry (1906) 10 C.W.N., 581, Section 539 'does not take away or affect existing substantive rights unless it says so. Secondly the section does not say so. To support the contrary contention it would have to be read as if the words 'but no other person or persons were inserted between the words 'Advocate General' and 'may institute,' that is, that no person but the Advocate General, or a public officer, or two or more persons with their consent can sue in the case of an alleged breach of trust or where directions for administration are necessary for the relief mentioned in the section.' In this case the suit has been instituted by the whole body of. persons authorized by the will to take action. It is not a suit merely by two or more persons having interest in the trust. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //