Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Shivabalayogi Maharaja Trust, filed a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2014 passed by the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No.7422/2007. The suit was for ejectment of the defendants (respondents) from suit schedule 'B' property and for mesne profits. The appellant contended that it was the absolute owner of the property, which was gifted to Shivabalayogi Maharaja and later vested in the Trust under a registered Trust Deed dated 4.2.1970, supplemented by a Supplementary Deed dated 24.08.1979. The suit was filed by the working Chairman and Treasurer of the Trust. The defendants, who were former employees of the Trust, were provided quarters in the suit property and after their services were terminated, they refused to vacate. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint was not filed in proper form and the person who filed the suit was not duly authorized. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not duly authorized to file the suit. The High Court, on appeal, examined the Trust Deed and Supplementary Deed and found that the Supplementary Deed only authorized the working Chairman and Treasurer to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Trust but did not confer authority to institute legal proceedings. The High Court held that the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the appeal, confirming the Trial Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Authorization to Sue - The suit for ejectment and mesne profits was filed by the working Chairman and Treasurer of the Trust. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not duly authorized to file the suit. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the Supplementary Trust Deed did not confer authority on the working Chairman and Treasurer to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the Trust. (Paras 3-5) B) Trust Law - Authority to Sue - Trust Deed - The Trust Deed dated 4.2.1970 and Supplementary Deed dated 24.08.1979 were examined. The High Court found that the Supplementary Deed only authorized the working Chairman and Treasurer to manage the day-to-day affairs of the Trust but did not authorize him to file suits. Therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint filed on behalf of the Trust was by a person duly authorized to do so, and whether the suit was maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Trial Court's judgment and decree dated 20.10.2014, which dismissed the suit for ejectment and mesne profits.
Law Points
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- authorization to sue on behalf of a trust
- rejection of plaint for lack of authority
- Section 96 CPC
