NARAIN LAL & ORS. versus SUNDER LAL (DEAD) & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 916 · Decided: 04-05-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

NARAIN LAL & ORS. 
A 
v. 
SUNDER LAL (DEAD) & ORS. 
May 4, 1967 . 
[R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
lJ 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s. 92- Per111issio11 
of 
Advocate-Ge11eral for fili11g suit-Permission give11 •fo four perso11s-
011e dies-Surviving three whether can file suit without obtalni11g fresh 
pennission. 
Four persons 
obtained the 
consent 
of the Advocate-General 
of 
Rajasthan to institute a suit against the respondents under s. 92 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure. Shortly thereafter one of the said four persons 
died and the suit was instituted by the three survivors. 
On the preli-
minary 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 maintain-
able. 
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 i~ not competent. When sanction in the present case 
was given to four peisons 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, 
~19Bl 
Muddala 
Blianavan11araya11a 
\'. 
Jladapa/li 
Perunwl/aclzaryulu, 
29 
M.LJ. 231, Pitclwyya & Anr, v. Venkarakris/111amacharlu 
& 
eleven 
Ors. 1.L.R. 5; Mad. 223, Sible Rasul v. Sibte Nabi & Ors. I.L.R. (1943) 
All 
112 Venkc;tesha Malia v. 
B. Ramaya Hegade and 
twelve 
Ors. 
I.L.R. 38 Mad. 1192, Musammat Ali Begam v. Badr-11/-Js/am Ali Khan, 
L.R. 65 I.A. 198, Raja Anand Rao v. Ramdas Dad11ram, L.R. 48 I.A. 12 
and Sheu Ram v. Ram C/iand & Ors., A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 356, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 767 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order 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. Agar1m/a, K. K. Jain, H. K. Puri and Uma Mehta, 
for respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15-18, 71, 23 and 24. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bacbawat, J. 
On September 10, 1955, Narain Lal, Moo! 
Chand Mangilal and Kesharichan'd obtained the consent in writ-
ing of 'the Advocate General, Rajasthan to institute a suit against 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
I 
r 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
r 
F 
G 
H 
NARAIN LAL v. SUNDER LAL ( Bachawat, I.) 
91 7 
the respondents under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The 
consent was in these tenns : 
"For the reasons detailed above I grant pennission 
to the applicants Sarvashri ( 1) Narainlal, 
(2) Moo! 
Chand, ( 3) Mangilal and < 4) Seth. Keshari~hand !or 
filing suit against the opposite parttes 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 1 to S and 7 of the draft 
plaint filed by them before me." 
Shortly thereafter Mangi Lal died. 
On !Vlarch 6, ~956, _Narain 
Lal Moo! Chand and Kesari Chand instituted a suit agamst 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 c~aritable tru?t for 
the benefit of the Shwetambar Sangh of the Jam commumty 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 foilowin_g preliminary issue : 
"Whether the suit is not maintainable on the strength 
of the permission obtained by the plaintiffs along with 
Mangi Lal who died prior to the institution of the 
suit ?" 
The tria.1 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 filed 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 Procedm·e in respect of a trust for 
public purposes of a charitable or religious nature may be insti-
tut~d by t~e Advocate-General or "two or more persons having 
a~ mterest m the trust and having obtained the consent in writing 
of the Advocate-General", and sa~e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.