1. The facts appear to be this. Nataraja was in 1914 declared by the High Court to be a trespasser. He appealed and the High Court's decision was upheld by the Privy Council in 1920. In that interval in 1919 he had filed this suit as head of the Mutt. After the Privy Council's judgment Annamalai who has now been brought on the record as plaintiff was elected head of the Mutt. Some time afterwards Nataraja died and in 1921 (1922) Annamalai applied to be brought on record as his legal representative. This application was granted and the order granting it has been brought up in revision.
2. It is now argued that Order 22 Rule 3 does not apply. It does not follow, however, that because an application has been made and granted under a wrong rule, respondent cannot be brought on record under the proper rule if any rule is applicable to his case.
3. On the whole 1 see no reason why Annamalai should not be allowed to continue the suit under Order 22, Rule 10. Nataraja sued on behalf of and as head of the Mutt. No doubt he was found not to be the duly elected head of the mutt, but as de facto trustee is allowed to sue vide Kasi Chetty v. Srimath Devasikamani Nataraja Desikar (1913) MWN 181. If Nataraja had a right to sue as representing the Mutt, it seems to me that on the appointment of a properly elected head the right to sue Revolved on the latter. It would have been a very different matter had Nataraja sued in his personal capacity. Here the real plaintiff is the Mutt and a suit brought on its behalf even by a wrongly appointed head can I think, be continued by a properly appointed successor on whom the representation of the institution has devolved.
4. Respondent will be allowed to continue the suit. The petitions are dismissed with costs (one set).