# Arunachella. A.LR. 1926 Madras 540 and Roshan Lal v. Kapur Chand, A.l.R

- **Citation:** [1976] 1 S.C.R. 487
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-08-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1974
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray C. J, K. K. Mathew Andy. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arunachella-a-lr-1926-madras-540-and-roshan-lal-v-kapur-chand-a-l-r-6620
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) 0. 22 rr. 3, 4 and 10--l'uit by
de jure A1ahant against de facto Mahant for possession and nzanagementDeath of defendant and election of another Mahant during pendency of appeal
-If appeal abates ..
The appellant filed the suit on the basis that as the Mahant of a Dern he
was entitled to possession and management of the properties of its branch
Dera. The defendant contended that it was an independent Dera and that he
\vas in possession of the properties as its lawfully appointed Mahant.. The '
trial court decreed the suit but in appeal the decree was reversed.
While the
second appeal, preferred by the appellant, was pending in the High Court. the
defendant died:
As the application to implead the elected successor of the
defendant was filed beyond the period prescribed for an application under 0.
23, rr. 3 and 4, the High Court held that the appeal had abated and that
there was no ground for setting aside the abatement. In appeal to this Court,
the appellant contended that even if the Chela, who had been elected as the
Mahan! on the death of the defendant, was not impleaded within the period
prescribed, there would be no abatement, because he represented the Dera.
Allo'win_g the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the· interest of the representative,
the rule that has to be applied is 0. 22, r. 10 and not 0. 22, rr. 3 or 4,
whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other
reason.
The: wolrd 'interest' in the rule means interest in the property,
i.e.,
the subject matter of the suit, and the interest is the interest of the person
who was the party to the suit.
This rule is based on the principle that the
trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a
party in the subject-matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the
pendency of the suit. The suit may be continued against the person acquiring
the interest \vith the leave of the Court.
[489F-G]
In the present case, when the defendant died, the interest which was the
subject-matter of the· suit devolved upon his successor elected as the Mahant
of the Dent, ri11d therefore, the appeal could be continued under 0. ?2. r. 10,
C.P.C. [489B·Cl
(2) Though it was uncertain on the death of the defendant as to who-
\\.'OUld ~co~ the Mahant by election, it would not make any difference for
the application ~f 0. 22, r. 10.
The devolution of the interest in the subject
matter of t~e stut took place when the new Mahant was elected. The suit was
for. possession and management of the Dera and the properties appertaining
to it by the appellant purporting to be the de jure Mahant ~gairu;t the defendant
as a de facto Mahant. The subject matter of the suit was the inteiest of the
defendant in the Dera and its properties and it devolved upon the new Mahant
by virtue of his election subsequent to the death of the defendant.
As it was
in a repres~ntative capacity that he defendant was sued and that it was in the
same representative capacity that the appeal was 50ught to be continued against
. the new Mahant, 0. 23, r. 10 will apply.
[490B-EJ
Retnant Pillai v. Natraja Desikar A.I.R. 1924 Madras 615, Thirumalai v .
Arunachella. A.LR. 1926 Madras 540 and Roshan Lal v. Kapur Chand, A.l.R.
1'60 Punjab, 382, approved.
. ·

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
-...
'
G
.~.
~ . 4;
H
RIKHU DEV, CHELA BAWA HARJUG DASS
v.
487
SOM DASS (DECEASED) THROUGHHIS CHELA SHIAMDASS
August 28, 1975
[A. N. RAY C. J., K. K. MATHEW ANDY. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) 0. 22 rr. 3, 4 and 10--l'uit by
de jure A1ahant against de facto Mahant for possession and nzanagementDeath of defendant and election of another Mahant during pendency of appeal
-If appeal abates ..
The appellant filed the suit on the basis that as the Mahant of a Dern he
was entitled to possession and management of the properties of its branch
Dera. The defendant contended that it was an independent Dera and that he
\vas in possession of the properties as its lawfully appointed Mahant.. The '
trial court decreed the suit but in appeal the decree was reversed.
While the
second appeal, preferred by the appellant, was pending in the High Court. the
defendant died:
As the application to implead the elected successor of the
defendant was filed beyond the period prescribed for an application under 0.
23, rr. 3 and 4, the High Court held that the appeal had abated and that
there was no ground for setting aside the abatement. In appeal to this Court,
the appellant contended that even if the Chela, who had been elected as the
Mahan! on the death of the defendant, was not impleaded within the period
prescribed, there would be no abatement, because he represented the Dera.
Allo'win_g the appeal to this Court,
HELD : ( 1) When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the· interest of the representative,
the rule that has to be applied is 0. 22, r. 10 and not 0. 22, rr. 3 or 4,
whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other
reason.
The: wolrd 'interest' in the rule means interest in the property,
i.e.,
the subject matter of the suit, and the interest is the interest of the person
who was the party to the suit.
This rule is based on the principle that the
trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a
party in the subject-matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the
pendency of the suit. The suit may be continued against the person acquiring
the interest \vith the leave of the Court.
[489F-G]
In the present case, when the defendant died, the interest which was the
subject-matter of the· suit devolved upon his successor elected as the Mahant
of the Dent, ri11d therefore, the appeal could be continued under 0. ?2. r. 10,
C.P.C. [489B·Cl
(2) Though it was uncertain on the death of the defendant as to who-
\\.'OUld ~co~ the Mahant by election, it would not make any difference for
the application ~f 0. 22, r. 10.
The devolution of the interest in the subject
matter of t~e stut took place when the new Mahant was elected. The suit was
for. possession and management of the Dera and the properties appertaining
to it by the appellant purporting to be the de jure Mahant ~gairu;t the defendant
as a de facto Mahant. The subject matter of the suit was the inteiest of the
defendant in the Dera and its properties and it devolved upon the new Mahant
by virtue of his election subsequent to the death of the defendant.
As it was
in a repres~ntative capacity that he defendant was sued and that it was in the
same representative capacity that the appeal was 50ught to be continued against
. the new Mahant, 0. 23, r. 10 will apply.
[490B-EJ
Retnant Pillai v. Natraja Desikar A.I.R. 1924 Madras 615, Thirumalai v .
Arunachella. A.LR. 1926 Madras 540 and Roshan Lal v. Kapur Chand, A.l.R.
1'60 Punjab, 382, approved.
. ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4-4-1973 of the Pnniab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1482 of 1961.
488
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
N. N. Goswamy and Arvind Minocha, for the appellant.
Kapil Sibbal and D. Probir Mitra, for responde11ts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
MATHEW, J.-This is a'a appeal by special leave agamst a decree
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana holding Lhat
the
B
appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has abated and dismissing his
suit.
The appellant brought the suit on the allegation t:iat thew was one
Shiromani Nirankari Dera at Patiala, that this institution
had twobranches-one at Landeke in Moga Tehsil and the other at Nanga
Kheri in the erstwhile Patiala State, arid that he, as mahant-in-charge
C
of the Shiromani Dera at Pati<ila had the right to manage the properties
attached to the Dera at Landeke. The prayer in the plaint was for recovery of possession of the Dcra and the properties attached to it.
&om Dass, the defendant, cdatended that the Dera at Lar.deke was
vn independent Dera and that he was in possession cA the properties
of the Dera as its lawfully appointed mahant.
D
The trial court decreed the suit. In appeal by the defendant the
decree was reversed.
Against that decree, an appeal was preferred
by the appellant to the High Court. While the appeal was pending irt
the High Court, Som Dass, the defendant, died on 13·10-1970.
No
application was made by the appellant to bring on record his legal
representatives within the period prescribed. An application was made
E
on 1-2-1971 by the appellant stating that
Som
Dass died on
26 11-1970 leaving behind him Shiam Dass as his Chela and for implcading him.
The correctness of the date of death of Som Dass was
·
contested by Shiam Dass.
The High Court referred the question to
J.
the trial Court for enquiry and decision. The trial Comt, after taking
evidence, found that Som Dass died on 13-10-1970.
Thereafter the
appel!amt prayed before the High Court that his application dated
F
1-2-1971 might be treated as ari application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal and the grom1d for setting aside the abatement was
that the appelrant did not know about the death of Som Dass at the
time he died. The High Court found no substance in tbe plea that the
appellant had no knowledge about the date of the death of Som Dass
and held that the appeal had abated and that there was no ground for
setting aside the abatement.
G
The appellant had raised a1a alternative contention before the High
Court that there was no abatement of the appeal even if Som Dass was
not impleaded within the period prescribed as he claimed to represent
J.. )"
1],e dera as its duly elected Chela. The High Court held that after the
,.
death of Som Dass, Shiam Dass, as his Chela "inherited the sum-total
of the rights which earlier vested in Som Dass and when a controversy
IJ
is raised about such rights, then the appellant was bound to bring on
record the legal representatives of the deceased within the time prescribed by law."
·
A
B
c
D
RllOIU DEV ,v. SOM DASS (Mathew, /.)
489
We do not think that the view of the High Court was correct. The
suit was filed on the basis that the appellant as the lawfully appointed
mahant was entitled to manage the properties of the Dera at Landeke,
that the defendant was unlawfully claiming to be the mahant of the
Dera and entitled to manage the properties of the Dera, and that the
appellant was entitled to be in possessiQln of the properties. As alrea~y
stated the contention of the defendant was that though the properties
belonged to the Dera, he was its lawfully appointed mahant and that
the appellant had no right to recover possession of the property of the
Dera. When Som Dass died, the interest which was the subject matter
of the suit, devolved upon Shiam Das as he was elected to be the
Mahant of the Dera and the appeal could be continued under Q. 22,
·r.10, of the Civil Procedure Code against the person upon whom the
interest !rad devolved.
Order 22, rule 10 reads :
"R. 10(1) In other cases of an assignment, creation or
devolution of any interest during the pendency of suit, the
suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against
the perso'a to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2) The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an interest entitling the person
who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule
(1) ."
E
This rule is based on the principle that trial of a suit cannot be
. brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject
matter of the suit has devolved upQla another during the pendency of
the' suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring
the interest with the leave of the Court. When a suit is brought by
or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devoluF
G
H
tion of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied
is Order 22, rule 10 and not rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes
place as a consequeince of death or for any other reason. Order 22,
rule 10, is not confined to devolution of interest of a party by death,
it also applies if the head of the mutt or manager of the temple resigns
his office or is removed from office. In such a case tlie successor io
the head of the mutt or to the manager of the temple may be substituted as a party under this rule. The word 'interest' which is mentioned in this rule means interest in the property i.e., the subject matter of the suit and the interest is the interest of the person who was the
party to the suit.
It was, however, coqtended on behalf of the respondent that there
was no devolution of the interest in the subject matter of the snit on
the death of Som Dass, since there was no certainty as to the person
who would be elected as mahant to succeed him. The argument was
that it was uncertain O'a the death of Som Dass as to who would become
the mahant by election, that it was only when a person sncceeded to
the mahantship on the death of a previous mah ant by virtue of law
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
. .or custom that there would be devolutiou of interest in the subject
matter of the suit and, therefore, Order 22, rule 10, would not be attracted. We see no force in this argument. We are of the view that
.<!evolution of the i'aterest in the subject matter of the suit took place
when Shiam Dass was elected as mahant of the Dera after the \]eat:h
.of Som Dass.
A
B
Som Dass
was sued in his capacity as a person who claimed
(though illegally according to the appellant) as mahant of the Dera.
·Som Dass contended th•at he was lawfully appointed as mahant of the
Dera. He never set up any claim which was adverse to the Dera or its
properties. The suit against Som Dass was not in his personal capaC
city but in his capacity as de facto mah'<J'at.
In other words, the suit
was for possession and management of the Dera and the properties
appertaining to it by the appellant purporting to be the de jure mahant
against Som Dass as de facto mahant. The fact that it was after Som
Dass died that Shiam Dass was elected to be the mahant of the Dcra
can make no difference when we are dealing with the questio',1 whether
D
the interest in the subject matter of the suit devolved upon him. The
subject matter of the suit was the interest of Som Dass in the Dera and
its properties and it devolved upon Shiam Dass by virtue of his election as mahant subsequent to the death of Som Dass. And, as it was
in a representative capacity that Som Dass was sued ~ad as it was in
.the same representative C'apacity that the appeal was sought to· be
continued against Shiam Dass, Order 22, rule 10 will apply('). In
Thirumalai v. Arunnchella(2 ) the Court held that a succeeding trustee
of a trustee who filed a suit and thereafter died during its pendency
was not legal represenuative of the predecessor in office.
The Court
said that where some of the trustees die or retire during the pendency
·Of a ~uit and new persons are elected to fill their place, it is a case of
-devolution of_ interest during the pendency of a suit and the elected
persons can be added as parties under Order 22, rule 10 notwithstanding that the period of limitation for impleading them had expired.
In Roshan Lal. v. Kapur Chand(") the Court took the view that
newly appointed trustees are '.10t legal representatives of the trustees
who had fried the suit and thereafter died during the pendency of the
suit, that they can be added as parties under Order 22, rule 10 notwithst·anding the fact that the period of limitation for an application to
(1) see Ratna1nPillai v. Nataraja Desikar, A. I. R. 1924 Madras 615 (I).
(2) A I. R. 1926 Madras 540.
(3) A. I. R. 1960 Punjab 382.
E
F
G
H
J
;J-
+ , 't
"
A
B
•
R!KHU DEV v. SOM DASS (Mathew, J.)
491
impleaded them under Order 22, rule 3 had elapsed. The Court said
(at p. 384) :
"Such an application is obviously
not a•a
application
under 0. 22, R. 3 Civil Procedure Code."
We also see no reason why the High Court should not have granted
leave to the appellant to prosecute the appeal.
In the result we reverse the decree of the court below and direct
the High Court to dispose of the appeal on merits.
We allow
the
appeal but, in the circumstances, make no order as to costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.