Summary
In a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree was passed settling a scheme in respect of a muth, Under para (11) of the scheme two persons were appointed as joint managers, and under para. (12) they were given liberty to apply for directions to the District Court as and when occasion arose for carrying out the scheme. The respondent one of the two managers appointed under the scheme, made an application to the District Judge seeking direction to sell cattle and cultivation rights of lands belonging to the muth. In spite of objections by the appellant, the other manager, the District Judge directed the sale. The appellant unsuccessfully appealed to the High Court. In appeal to this Court the appellant contended that in view of s. 92(1)cl. (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the District Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order; on the other hand the respondent relied on paras (11) and (12) of the scheme to support his contention that the District Judge had jurisdiction.
HELD : It is open in a suit under s. 92 of the Code for the settlement of a scheme to provide in the scheme itself for modifying it whenever necessary by inserting a clause to that effect. A suit for the settlement of a scheme is analogous to an administration suit and so long as the modification in the scheme is for the purpose of administration such modification could be made by an application under the relevant clause of the scheme, without the necessity of a separate suit under s. 92 of the Code the provisions of which were not violated by such a procedure.[153 G-H]Raja Anandrao v. Shamrao, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 930, followed.The District Judge had jurisdiction to give directions under paras (11) and (12) of the scheme, as these directions were of the nature of ordinary administration of trust-property and they did not fall within cl. (f) in s. 92(1) of the Code. [155 B]Clause (f) in s. 92(1) cannot be read in such a way as to hamper the ordinary administration of trust properties by trustees or managers thereof; and so there can be no invalidity in a provision in the scheme which directed the trustee or managers, or even one out of two managers when they cannot agree, to obtain directions of the court with respect to the disposal or alienation of the property belonging to the trust. Clause (f) did not apply to the circumstances of this case and no suit under S. 92 was necessary in consequence. [157 E-F]Whether the direction could be sought by persons other than trustees or managers was not considered. [157 C]152See the full content of this document
Extract
Chairman Madappa VS. M. N. Mahanthadevaru And Others
PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN MADAPPA Vs.RESPONDENT: M. N. MAHANTHADEVARU AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/1965BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)HIDAYATULLAH, M.SHAH, J.C.SIKRI, S.M.CITATION: 1966 AIR 878 1966 SCR (2) 151ACT: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) ss. 91(1), cl.(f), 92--Religious Endowment-Scheme Settled appointing joint managers with liberty to seek court's directions on necessity-One manager seeks directions-Whether court can direct cl. (f) if bars.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 957 of 1963.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 15, 1961 of the Mysore High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 499 of 1960.V. Krishnamurti and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.B. D. Ja...
See the full content of this document