S.N. Pachamuthu Nadar vs Naga Pillai and Others

Govinda Menon, J.—Original Petition no. 49 of 1948 on the file of the District Court of East Tanjore is I an application for leave to sue in

forma pauperis by some relators of a temple seeking to recover property on behalf of the temple and for possession to be delivered over to the

defaulting truatees who had not taken steps to get the pro-party from the alienees. The point was raised as to whether the petitioners respondents

could sue in that capacity unless it is shown that the entice body of people who claim to be worshippers of this temple are paupers. The learned

Judge has found that individually the petitioners are paupers and therefore granted the application to sue in forma pauper is. Mr. G.R. Jagadisa

Aiyar for the petitioner in this Court relies upon a decision of Rajamannar J. as he then was in Vellingiri Naicken and Another Vs. Sree

Patteswaraswami Devasthanam and Others, . The learned Judge there had to consider the case where some members of a village community

sought leave to sue in forma pauperis to recover landa on behalf of the village community claiming that they are communal landa. Rajamannar J.

held that unless it is shown that the entire body of villagers are paupers, any member claiming to be a villager cannot file a suit as a pauper for the

recovery of communal lands. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion arrived at there. But the circumstances and the facts here are quite

different. The petitioners respondents are relators and in their individual capacity they are entitled, as of right, to bring a suit for the recovery of

temple properties possession of which has to be given over to the trustees who had defaulted in filing the suit. It is an individual right and if the

petitioners-respondents are individually paupers they are entitled to file the suit in forma pauperis. The question whether other worshippers of the

temple are multimillionaires, or could pay the court-fee, would not disentitle the petitioners respondents from filing the suit. I am therefore of

opinion, that the lower Court is right in allowing the application to be registered as a suit and no question of jurisdiction arises. The civil revision

petition is therefore dismissed with costs.