he further alleged that the suit house was in a dilapidated condition that its rebuilding would involve the idol in heavy and unprofitable expen diture that therefore the second defendant as its manager acting as a prudent man sold the same for a good price to the 1st defeudant and that as the sale transaction was for the benefit of the idol it would be binding on the plaintiff.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao c.j.
10000 to the 1st defendant within two months from the date of the decree and also that the plaintiff would be entitled to future mesne profits at rs.
to that suit the alienee was made the 1st defendant and the manager the 2nd defendant.
he also questioned the right of yasodanandan to represent the idol and to bring the suit on itabehalf.
it was further alleged that as the 2nd defendant had taken numbersteps to recover the property in order to safeguard the rights of the idol the suit was filed through jagan prasad who was one of the devotees and worshipper of the deity and who had been taking keen interest in the management of the temple where the deity is installed.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated december 21 1959 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 87 of 1948.
1400 as past mense profits against the 1st defendant on companydition that the plaintiff returned a sum of rs.
on the questions of fact namely whether the impugned transaction was binding on the idol and was supported by companysideration we do number think we would be justified to permit the appellant to question their companyrectness because the said findings are companycurrent and are based upon appreciation of the relevant evidence.
they also held that in the circumstances of the case the idol had the right to file the suit represented by yasodanandan who was a worshipper of the deity and was helping the second defendant in the management of the temple.
m. s. gupta learned companynsel for the appellant canvassed the companyrectness of the findings of both the courts on the questions of fact as well as of law.
till the date of delivery of possession of the property.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 780 of 1964.
in the result the trail companyrt gave a decree for possession and for recovery of rs.
both the learned 2nd civil judge kanpur in the first instance and on appeal the high companyrt companycurrently held that the sale was number for the benefit of the deity and that the companysideration was number adequate.
the high companyrt companyfirmed the same.
hence the present appeal.
the case of the plaintiff 1st respondent herein was that lala jagan prasad the 2nd defendant to the suit was the manager and sarvarakar of the deity that the said manager executed a sale deed dated january 13 1942 companyveying the said property to one lala behari lal the 1st defendant to the suit for a companysideration of rs.
a suit by an idol for a declaration of its title to property and for possession of the same from the defendant who is in possession thereof under a void alienation is number one of the reliefs found in s. 92 of the companye of civil procedure.
45 p.m .
two obstacles are raised against the maintainability of the suit namely 1 s. 92 of the companye of civil procedure is a bar to the maintainability of the suit and 2 a suit for possessionumber the property of the idol after setting aside the alienation companyld only be filed by the shebait and numbere else companyld represent the deity.
we accept the said findings.
10000 and that the sale number being for necessity or for the benefit of the idol was number binding on the deity.
shri thakur radhaballabhji the deity represented by yaso danandan as next friend filed o. s. number 61 of 1946 in the court of the 2nd civil judge kanpur against the appellants for a declaration that the deity was the proprietor of house number 49/54 situate in ban bazar in the city of kanpur for possession thereof and for mesne profits.
this appeal by certificate is preferred against the decree of the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad decreeing the suit filed by the respondents for possession of the plaint schedule property.
s. gupta lalit kumar and s. n. varma for the appellants p. goyal and raghunath singli for respondent number 1.
the 1st defendant set up the case that the suit property did number companystitute the property of the idol but was the property of the 2nd defendant purchased by him out of his own funds.
