Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order I Rule 8, Order XXXII Rule 1 — Civil Rules of Practice (Kerala), Rule 15 — Suit on behalf of Idol — Maintainability — Suit filed by worshiper as next friend without formal application/affidavit. Held: A worshiper is fully competent to maintain a suit as a next friend to protect the properties of the deity when the trustee turns hostile to the trust or acts detrimental to its interests. An Idol, being a perpetual minor, cannot be left without protection when the manager/shebait compromises its interests. The formal procedural lapse of not filing a separate affidavit or application under the Civil Rules of Practice cannot defeat the substantive rights of the deity. This is especially true when notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC was successfully issued, published, and notice was given to all interested devotees, thereby curing any initial procedural irregularity. (Para 2)

advocatemmmohan

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order I Rule 8, Order XXXII Rule 1 — Civil Rules of Practice (Kerala), Rule 15 — Suit on behalf of Idol — Maintainability — Suit filed by worshiper as next friend without formal application/affidavit.

Held: A worshiper is fully competent to maintain a suit as a next friend to protect the properties of the deity when the trustee turns hostile to the trust or acts detrimental to its interests. An Idol, being a perpetual minor, cannot be left without protection when the manager/shebait compromises its interests. The formal procedural lapse of not filing a separate affidavit or application under the Civil Rules of Practice cannot defeat the substantive rights of the deity. This is especially true when notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC was successfully issued, published, and notice was given to all interested devotees, thereby curing any initial procedural irregularity. (Para 2)

(B) Hindu Law — Religious Endowments — Deities and Idols — Legal Status — Idol as perpetual minor — Alienation of trust property by Trustee — Fraud and Breach of Trust.

Held: An Idol is recognized in law as a juristic person holding the status of a perpetual minor. Its rights and properties cannot be traded away by an unfaithful or hostile trustee through a collusive compromise or fraudulent transactions. Where the original second defendant was explicitly found to be a trespasser in prior litigation, the execution of a registered settlement/document (Ext.A2) by the trustee in favor of such trespasser acts completely in breach of trust and constitutes a total fraud on the Idol’s interests. Such a collusive document is void ab initio against the deity. (Para 1, 3)

(C) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 — Section 51 — Surrender of Kanam Lease — Validity of possession — Continuous possession of Deity.

Held: Where a kanam lease was validly surrendered by the tenant in favor of the deity in 1964 via a recorded document (Ext.A1), and such surrender was not hit by the statutory bars or forced eviction provisions under Section 51 of the Act, the transaction is perfectly lawful. Consequently, the property continuously remained in the lawful, physical, and constructive possession of the deity until the fraudulent alienation in 1985. The first appellate court was, therefore, completely justified in ordering the recovery of possession of the suit schedule property to protect the religious endowment. (Para 3)

Cases Referred:

• Bishwanath and Ors. v. Sri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Others, AIR 1967 SC 1044 (Ref)