Summary
The head of a math, executed a will by which he nominated a panel of four persons in order of choice to succeed him as head. After his death. the first respondent, who was the first in the panel, accepted the office. But A section of the worshippers installed K. an outsider, as the head of the math, Thereafter, the appellants, after obtaining the permission of the Advocate General. filed the suit under s.
92, C.P.C., against the first respondent. They alleged that the deceased head of the math did not execute the will while he was in sound disposing state of mind; that the first respondent had not the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the Vedas; that the first respondent was therefore not a qualified person; and that the first respondent had committed breach of trust of the math properties. The appellants prayed for a declaration that K was the duly installed head of the math, and in the alternative to appoint any other competent person as head of the math.They also prayed for the vesting of the properties of the math in the new head, for rendition of accounts by the first respondent, and for a direction for the administration of the trust properties. The trial court and High Court held that the suit was only for the vindication of tile right ofK and was therefore not maintainable under s. 92 and dis- missed the suit.Dismissing the appeal to this Court,HELD : ( 1) This Court would not disturb the, finding that the suit was primarily one for declaration that K was the duly installed head of the math especially when the allegations in the plaint are reasonably susceptible of being so read. [800E-G](2) A suit under s. 92, C.P.C., is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character. When two or more persons interested in the trust bring a suit purporting to be under the section the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. The suit can proceed only on the allegations that there was a breach of such trust, or that the direction of the court is necessary for- the administration of the trust, and the plaintiff must pray for one or more reliefs that are mentioned in the section. If the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the court for the proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of the suit would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under s. 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested then the suit would be outside the scope of S. 92. When the right to the office of the trustees is assented or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside a. 92. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under s. 92, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. In deciding whether the suit falls within the section the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. [799D-800A]Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kumma mia, (1969) 3 S.C.R- 83, followed.Shamukhan v. Govinda, A.I.R. 1937 Madras 92. Tirumalai Devasthama v. Krishanayya A.I.R. 1943 Madras 466, approved.791 (3) If on the allegations in the plaint it is clear that the purpose of the suit was to vindicate the individual right of K to be the head of the math there is no reason to hold that the suit was brought to uphold the right of the beneficiaries of the trust, merely because the suit was filed by two or MGM members of the public after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General and one or more of the reliefs specified in the section are claimed therein. The relief regarding the appointment of K and the alternative relief to appoint some other person " the head, without any allegations as to the circumstances which would invalidateK's installation and without impleading him as a party, shows the attempt to mako it appear that the appellants were disinterested champions of the right of the public. If the real purpose in bringing the suit was to vindicate the general right of the public to have the rightful claimant appointed to the office them was no reason why the appellants, as plaintiffs, omitted to implead or at lout refer in the plaint to the three persons nominated by the deceased head of the math in his will to succeed in the order indicated therein, especially when the appellant accepted the custom of the math to have the successor nominated by the incumbent for the time being. [800C-D, F-H].(4) The trial court as well as the High Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations of breach of trust against the fies respondent. No reasons were given in the plaint for asking the directions of the court for the administration of trust. The plaintiffs did not plead facts and particulars as regards any defect in the machinery for administration which had crept in, under custom or rules. which required rectification. [80OH-801C](5) To we whether the suit falls within the ambit of a. 92, only the allegation in the plaint should be looked into in the first instance. But, if after evidence is taken it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the court is vague and is not based on any foundation of fact or reason, but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the section, then such a suit must be dismissed. [801D-F]Association of B. D. B. Bagga Singh v. Gurnam Singh, A.I.R.1972 Rajasthan 263, Vahan Singh v. Achhar Singh & Others A.I.R. 1968 Punjab and Haryana 463, and Radha Krishna & Others v. Lachmi narain and others A.I.R. 1948 Oudh 203. referred to.[The question whether the words "where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust" must be interpreted to Dan that where the court has to give directions in the nature of framing a scheme or otherwise for the administration of the trust, or whether those words can refer only to directions given to an existing trustee or to a new trustee when one is to be appointed, or to directions when there are allegations of maladministration amounting to breach of trust not decided].[801C-D]See the full content of this document
Extract
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr, VS. Ramji Tripathi & Anr.
PETITIONER: SWAMI PARMATMANAND SARASWATI & ANR, Vs.RESPONDENT: RAMJI TRIPATHI & ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1974BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIENBENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIENRAY, A.N. (CJ)CITATION: 1974 AIR 2141 1975 SCR (1) 790 1974 SCC (2) 695CITATOR INFO : RF 1975 SC 371 (9)D 1991 SC 221 (9)ACT: Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 92--Suit under--Tests for.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1589 of 1973.Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 11th September, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 385 of 1962.D. V. Patel, R. Dwivedi, 0. P. Shah and M. V. Goswami for the appellants.P. Ram Reddy, R. D. Sharma, S. S. Khanduja V. K. S.Chaudhary, Narayan Swarup and Yatendra Singh Choudhry, for respondent no. 1.Pramod Swarup, for respondent...
See the full content of this document