http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NARAIN LAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUNDER LAL (DEAD) & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/05/1967

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1540            1967 SCR  (3) 916

ACT:     Code  of  Civil  Procedure  (Act 5  of  1908),  s.  92-- Permission  of Advocate-General for filing  Suit--Permission given to four persons-One dies--Surviving three whether  can file suit without obtaining fresh permission.

HEADNOTE:     Four persons  obtained. the  consent  of the   Advocate- General   of  Rajasthan  to institute  a  suit  against  the respondents  under  s. 92 of the Code o,f  Civil  Procedure. Shortly thereafter one of the said four persons died and the suit  was  instituted  by  the  three  survivors.   On   the preliminary  issue whether the suit filed by three  persons, when   the   permission  had  been  given  to.   four,   was maintainable,  the  trial court held that it was.  The  High COurt,  however,  in  revision  held the  suit  not  to.  be maintainable.   Appeal  was filed in this Court  by  special leave.     HELD:  An  authority  to sue given  to  several  persons without  more is a joint authority and must be exercised  by all  jointly,  and  a  suit by some  of  them  only  is  not competent.  When sanction in the present case was given  to. four persons and one of them died before the institution  of the  suit,  a suit by the remaining three  was  incompetent. Fresh  sanction  must be obtained by the survivors  for  the institution of the suit. [918D-E, 919B ]     Muddala       Bhagavannarayana       v.        Vadapalli Perumallacharyuht,   29  M.L.J.  232, Pitchayya  &  Anr.  v. Venkatakrishnamacharlu   &   eleven Ors. I.L.R. 53 Mad. 223, Sibte  Rasid  v. Sibte Nabi & Ors.  I.L.R. (1943)  All   112 Venkatesha  Mafia  v.  B. Ramaya Hegade  and   twelve   Ors. I.L.R. 38 Mad. 1192, Musammat Ali Begam v. Badr-ul-Islam Ali Khan,  L.R. 65 I.A. 198, Raja Anand Rao v.  Ramdas  Daduram. L.R.  48 I.A. 12 and Sheo Ram v. Rama Chand &  Ors.,  A.I.R. 1940 Lab. 356, referred to.

JUDGMENT:  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 1964. Civil Appeal No. 767 of     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

dated  August 14, 1961 of the Rajasthan High Court  in  D.P. Civil Misc. Application No. 128 of 1960.     Gopi Nath Kunzru, W.S. Barlingay and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.     C.B Agarwala, K.K. Jain, H.K. Puri  and  Uma Mehta,  for respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15-18, 21, 23 and 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Bachawat,  J.  On September 10, 1955,  Narain Lal,  Mool Chand,  Mangilal  and Kesharichand obtained the  consent  in writing  of the Advocate General, Rajasthan to  institute  a suit against 917 the respondents under S. 92 of the Code of Civil  Procedure. The consent was in these terms :               "For  the  reasons  detailed  above  I   grant               permission  to  the applicants  Sarvashri  (1)               Narainlal,  (2) Mool Chand, (3)  Mangilal  and               (4) Seth Kesharichand for filing suit  against               the opposite parties Shri Malilal Kasliwal and               27  other  members and office holders  of  the               executive committee Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri               Mahabir  Swami  Temple  Chandangaon,  for  the               reliefs  detailed in para 28 sub-paras I to  5               and 7 of the draft plaint filed by them before               me." Shortly  thereafter  Mangi  Lal died.   On  March  6,  1956, Narain.   Lal Mool Chand and Kesari Chand instituted a  suit against  the  respondents under S. 92 of the Code  of  Civil Procedure,  claiming a declaration that the temple  of  Shri Mahabirji  at  Naurangabad and the  appertaining  properties were  a  public  charitable trust for  the  benefit  of  the Shwetambar  Sangh  of  the Jain community  or  of  the  Jain community  as  a whole and for other reliefs.  On  March  9, 1958,  Kesari Chand died.  The trial court raised and  tried the following preliminary issue               "Whether  the suit is not maintainable on  the               strength  of  the permission obtained  by  the               plaintiffs along with Mangi Lai who died prior               to the institution of the suit ?" The  trial court held that the suit was  maintainable.   The High  Court  in its revisional jurisdiction  set  aside  the order  of  the trial’ court and held that the suit  was  not maintainable.   The present appeal has been tiled  from  the order of the High Court by special leave. A  suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-s.  (1) of  S.  92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in  respect  of  a trust  for  public  purposes of a  charitable  or  religious nature may be instituted by the Advocate-General or "two  or more  persons  having an interest in the  trust  and  having obtained  the consent in writing of  the  Advocate-General", and  save as provided by the Religious Endowments  Act  1863 and  certain  other laws, no suit claiming Such  reliefs  in respect  of  any  such trust can  be  instituted  except  in conformity  with sub-s. (1) of S. 92.  In the present  case, fourpersons obtained the necessary sanction of the  Advocate General. one of them died before the suit was filed, and the remaining  three,  instituted  the suit.   The  question  is whether the suit is brought in conformity with S. 92(1). The  decided  cases show that a suit under S.  92  must  be, brought  by  all  the persons to whom the  sanction  of  the Advocate  General has been given, and a suit  instituted  by some of them 918 only  is not maintainable.  In Muddala  Bhagayannarayana  V. Vadapalli Perumallacharyulu(1) where the, sanction was given

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

to  four  persons  and two of them alone  brought  the  suit alleging  that  the  other  two had been  won  over  by  the defendants  and hall refused to join as plaintiffs,  it  was held  that the suit was not maintainable.  In Pitchayya  and another  v.  Venkatakrishnamacharlu  and  eleven  others(2), where  the  sanction was given to three persons,  the  court held that the suit instituted by two of them. was  invalidly brought and the defect could not be cured by impleading  the other  person as a defendant.  In Sibte Rasul v. Sibte  Nabi and others(1), where four persons obtained the sanction  and the  suit was instituted by three of them, it was held  that the  suit was incompetent and the defect could not be  cured by  impleading the fourth as a plaintiff at the date of  the delivery  of  the judgment.  We may add that  in  Venkatesha Malia  v.  B. Ramaya Hegade and twelve others(1)  where  the sanction to sue under S. 18 of the Religious Endowments  Act 1863 was given by the district judge to two persons, it  was held that only one of them could not institute the suit. We  hold -that an authority to sue given to several  persons without more is a joint authority and must be acted upon  by all  jointly,  and  a  suit by some  of  them  only  is  not competent.  As Sir George Rankin said in Musammat Ali  Begam v. Badr-ul- Islam Ali Khan(1), "where the consent in writing of  the Advocate General or Collector is given to a suit  by three  persons  as plaintiffs, the suit  cannot  be  validly instituted by two only.  The suit as instituted must conform to  the  consent.  Once the representative suit  is  validly instituted,  it  is subject to all the incidents of  such  a suit;  the subsequent death of a plaintiff will  not  render the   suit  incompetent,  see  Raja  Anand  Rao  v.   Ramdas Daduram(6),  and  an  appeal  by  some  of  the   plaintiffs impleading  the remaining plaintiff as a respondent  is  not incompetent  because  all did not join  as  appellants,  see Musammat Ali Begam v. Badr-ul-Islam Ali Khan (5). In Shea Ram v. Rain Chand and others ( 7 the sanction of the Collector  to bring a suit under S. 92 was given  to  twenty persons.   One of them died before the suit was brought  and the remaining nineteen instituted the suit.  Skempg, J. held that in view of tile two Privy Council rulings the suit  was validly  instituted.   But he erroneously  assumed  that  in Musammat Ali Begam v. Badr-ul- Islam Ali Khan(5) it was held that  where the sanction had been given to three persons,  a suit by two of them only was validly (1) 29 M.L.J. 231.            (2) I.L.R. 53 Mad. 223. (3) I.L.R. (1943) All. 112.   (4) 1.L.R. 38 Mad. 1192. (5) I.L.R. 65 1. A. 198.      (6) L.R. 48 I.A. 12.            (7) A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 356. 919 instituted.   From  the report of Raja Anand Rao  v.  Ramdas Daduram(1), it is not clear whether all the persons to  whom the  sanction  was  given brought the suit,  and  the  point raised  and  decided  was  that the  death  of  one  of  the plaintiffs after the institution of the suit did not  render the  suit  incompetent.   We are unable to  agree  with  the Lahore ruling.  Where sanction is given to four persons  and one of them dies before the institution of the suit, a  suit by the remaining three is incompetent.  Fresh sanction  must be  obtained  by the survivors for the  institution  of  the suit.  We must hold that the suit brought by the  appellants was  competent.  The High Court rightly held that  the  suit was  not  maintainable..  This judgment  will  not  bar  the institution  of  a  fresh suit in conformity  with  a  fresh consent obtained from the Advocate-General or Collector. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs. G.C.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                                      Appeal dismissed (1) L. R. 48 I.A. 12. Cl/67-15 920