9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code; Existence of a public charitable trust; Jurisdiction of the court to try the suit; Allegations of breach of trust and misconduct against the defendant; Applicability of section 92 in the case; Nature of reliefs that can be granted under section 92; Correctness of the High Court's decision regarding the existence of a public trust; Scope of declaratory relief in a suit under section 92. Analysis: The case involved a dispute arising from a suit under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the plaintiffs alleged the defendant, who was the trustee of a religious cult, had acted contrary to the institution's usages and mismanaged trust properties. The plaintiffs sought various reliefs, including declaring the properties as religious and charitable trust properties, removing the defendant from his position, seeking accounts, and framing a management scheme for the institution. The defendant contested the suit, arguing that no public trust existed regarding the properties in question, claiming they were his private properties. The District Judge initially dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the properties were tied to public charitable purposes, thus falling under section 92. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee, which was refused, leading to a subsequent petition to the Privy Council. The Privy Council declined leave, indicating the matter was still at an interlocutory stage, allowing for a fresh petition after all issues were determined. Upon rehearing, the District Judge found the plaintiffs' allegations of misconduct unproven and dismissed the suit, despite acknowledging the properties as public, religious, and charitable. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the High Court, which affirmed the District Judge's ruling. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision to remand the case based on the existence of a public trust. The Court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the suit lacked a cause of action under section 92, as the allegations of breach of trust were not substantiated, and no direction from the court was required for trust administration. The Court emphasized that a suit under section 92 must involve a breach of trust or the need for court directions for trust management. Since the plaintiffs failed to establish these conditions, the suit lacked merit under section 92. Therefore, the Court modified the decree to dismiss the suit without granting the declaratory relief regarding the properties' trust status. The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs.
|
