Sri Ridhnath Mahadeoji and anr. Vs. Sheo Ramji and ors. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Ryves and ;Daniels, JJ.|
|Appellant||Sri Ridhnath Mahadeoji and anr.|
|Respondent||Sheo Ramji and ors.|
idol - representation of idol in litigation--facts entitling a person to sue on behalf of an idol. - 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 schools which are established and administered..........grounds of appeal were not urged. the endowment is a recent one and there is no rule of succession laid down in the deed establishing it. the original manager of the property was one ajudhia puri who is dead. two persons, ram kishan das and baijnath tewari, were appointed to supervise the management. ajudhia puri's chela and successor is a minor and ram kishan das, in virtue of his powers of supervision, has, rightly or wrongly, appointed vivekanand guardian of the property on the minor's behalf. vivekanand is in possession of the title-deeds and has no interest adverse to the idol. it is important to note that ibis is not a suit brought by vivekanand in the capacity of a trustee or shebait. the real plaintiff is the idol, and, as was pointed out in the full bench case of jodhi bai v......
Ryves and Daniels, JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of an idol, through Vivekanand as next friend, to recover property belonging to the idol which had been wrongfully sold by a relative of the original Mahant Ajudhia Puri. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below. The defendant appellant does not assert that his vendor had any right to dispose of the property, which admittedly belonged to the idol; but he attacks the decree on the technical ground that Vivekanand was not authorized to sue on behalf of the idol. Other pleas taken in the grounds of appeal were not urged. The endowment is a recent one and there is no rule of succession laid down in the deed establishing it. The original manager of the property was one Ajudhia Puri who is dead. Two persons, Ram Kishan Das and Baijnath Tewari, were appointed to supervise the management. Ajudhia Puri's chela and successor is a minor and Ram Kishan Das, in virtue of his powers of supervision, has, rightly or wrongly, appointed Vivekanand guardian of the property on the minor's behalf. Vivekanand is in possession of the title-deeds and has no interest adverse to the idol. It is important to note that ibis is not a suit brought by Vivekanand in the capacity of a trustee or Shebait. The real plaintiff is the idol, and, as was pointed out in the Full Bench case of Jodhi Bai v. Basdeo Prasad (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 735, a person suing on behalf of the idol is not personally interested in the suit any more than is the next friend or guardian of a minor. In our opinion Vivekanand has a sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the suit to be entitled to bring the suit in the name and on behalf of the idol. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.