Mandoori Durga Mallikharjana Vara Prasad Rao and Another vs Gudipudi Gopalacharlu and Others

This is an appeal arising from a suit filed u/s 92 of the CPC for the removal of Defendants 1 to 7 from trusteeship of the plaint temple, for a

declaration that certain properties described in the schedule belonged to the temple and for framing a scheme. The suit has been dismissed by the

lower Court on the ground inter alia that none of the Defendants 1 to 7 is a trustee of the temple but that the trustee is really the 8th defendant, the

Zemindar of Mirzapur, and that against him no sanction was obtained from the Collector and that the endorsement of sanction by the Collector on

the plaint before he was added as a party is not a sufficient sanction to enable the suit to be maintained against him.

We think the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the suit is not maintainable on the present sanction. The 8th defendant is the real trustee

and as against him no sanction has been obtained. 8th defendant objected to the suit going on in the lower Court on this very ground, though

before us he is nob pressing that objection as he has joined the plaintiffs. Nevertheless we think that the conclusion that the sanction obtained was

not a proper sanction to justify the suit u/s 92 is a conclusion which that Court was entitled to come to and it is not open to us to set aside its order

in appeal merely because the 8th defendant now waives his objection before us. We think it is not an objection that can be properly waived. The

very object of insisting upon the sanction of a Collector or of the Advocate General being obtained as a preliminary to a suit u/s 92 is to secure that

suits are not brought against trustees unless there is a prima facie case against them of breach of trust or unless circumstances exist which

necessitate the Court''s interference in the administration of the trust. The object of this section will be defeated if it is left open to a plaintiff to get

sanction against a person who is not the trustee and then use it afterwards against the real trustee. The personality of the; trustee and the way in

which he is dealing with the trust are matters of material consideration in granting sanction for a suit.

It is quite true that every addition of a defendant is not necessarily to be regarded as invalidating the sanction already obtained u/s 92. The test

as to whether a new sanction is necessary when a new defendant is added has been laid down in the case of Gopalakrishna Iyer v. Ganapathi Iyer

[1920] M.W.N. 478, as depending on whether the scope of the suit has been really enlarged or altered by the addition of the new party. We

accept that statement as embodying the right principle in considering the question at issue. In the case before us the addition of the 8th defendant

entirely changes the nature and scope of the suit. Against him there is no allegation of any breach of trust. As the learned Subordinate Judge has

found there is no reason whatsoever for removing him from the trusteeship and nothing to justify the Court''s interference in the administration of the

trust. We accept that finding. The 8th defendant is the Zemindar of Mirzapur. We have no doubt that he would discharge his duties as trustee to

the satisfaction of all concerned worshippers and others. In these circumstances we think that the addition of the 8th defendant subsequent to the

obtaining of the Collector''s sanction has rendered that sanction invalid and hold that the suit is not maintainable and dismiss the appeal, but in the

circumstances we do not propose to grant costs to either of the parties.