Skip to content


M. Varadayya Chetty and anr. Vs. C. Munusami Chetty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.232
AppellantM. Varadayya Chetty and anr.
RespondentC. Munusami Chetty and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 92, scheme suit - parties--suit by two worshippers of temple--petition-by other worshippers to be made parties--jurisdiction. - - 2. the applicants have failed to show that the plaintiffs are not prosecuting the suit bona fide and in the interests of the applicants and other worshippers......and in the interests of the applicants and other worshippers. all that appears from the affidavits is that the 1st defendant has his own party which the applicants represent. as regards the desire of the applicants to be present at the settlement of a scheme, the present application is premature and my order is without prejudice to any application that parties may be advised to make when a scheme is before the court.3. application is dismissed with costs of plaintiff and 2nd defendant (two sets).
Judgment:
ORDER

Bakewell, J.

1. The learned Vakil for the plaintiffs has argued that this application does not lie, and is premature, on the ground that the suit has been instituted with the sanction of the Advocate General and that the proper time for the applicant to intervene is when a scheme for the management of the charities is before the Court. I think that the suit is a representative suit brought by two of the worshippers on behalf of the whole body of worshippers of the temple, that the fact that sanction has been obtained for its institution does not change the character of the suit in any way and that such an application as the present will lie if it be shown that the plaintiffs are not prosecuting the suit to the advantage of the persons they profess to represent.

2. The applicants have failed to show that the plaintiffs are not prosecuting the suit bona fide and in the interests of the applicants and other worshippers. All that appears from the affidavits is that the 1st defendant has his own party which the applicants represent. As regards the desire of the applicants to be present at the settlement of a scheme, the present application is premature and my order is without prejudice to any application that parties may be advised to make when a scheme is before the Court.

3. Application is dismissed with costs of plaintiff and 2nd defendant (two sets).


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