CHARAN SINGH AND ANR. versus DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 17-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

48 
CHARAN SINGH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
DARSHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
December 17, 197 4 
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNr\vAuA, JJ.] 
Section 92 of C.P.C.-Consrnt of Advocate General for instituting a suit-
B 
Whether allegations i11 tile plaint to be seen for determini11g wfzether the suit is 
of the nature melllioned i11 sectio11 92-Whether substance of the nature of the 
suit to be taken i11to 
co11sideratio11--W hether reliefs mentio11ed in section 92 
should be present in tlze plaint. 
Suit filed in a represelllative capacity whether abates on the death of one of 
the plaintiffs. 
· 
The respondents field a suit against appellant No. 1 for permanent injunction 
C 
restraining him from interfering with the Guru Garanth Saheb, for religious re-
citals in the Darbar Saheb as well as restraining him from interfering with the 
rights of reciting the Guru Garanth Sahib and holding and joining !the religious 
c.:mgregations .and Satsl).ng in the Gurudwara. The villagers dedicated certain land 
· to the Granth Saheb in the year 1897. Several persons succeeded as the trustees, 
the appellant being the last one at the relevant time. The grievance made in the 
suit was that the appellant was committing a breach of trust by not using the Dera 
in ~eneral and Darbar Sabeb in particular for the purposes for whii:h the same 
was deciicated. The Trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable in the ab-
D 
sence of the consent of the Advocate General as required by .section 92 of the 
Civil Procedure Code. 
The First Appellate Court affirmed the decision of !'he 
Trial Court. The Single Judge of the High Court in Regular Second Appeal dis-
mis~ed the plaintiff's appeal on the ground that the suit was hit by section 92 
of the Civil Procedure Code·. On grant of leave under clause 10 of the Letters 
Patent.· B.ench allowed the appeal and remitted back the case to the Trial Court 
holding that the suit' was not barred by section 92 of the Code. 
On appeal by Special Leave it was contended before this Court that (1) The 
E 
judgment of tho High Court in relation to section 92 of the Code is •moneous in 
law. The suit was barred under the said provision of the Code; (2) On the 
death of one of the plaintiffs appellants during the pendency of the second appeal 
in the High Court the whole of the appeal abated and ought to have been dis-
missed as such. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HEID : Since the suit has been filed in a representative capacity on the death 
of one of the plaintiffs it did not abate. The decision in Raja Anand Rao followed. 
F 
[53C] 
HEID FURTHER : The plaint alleges breach of duty on the part of th~ 
trustee and the plaintiffs seek the court's aid against the trustee for forcing him 
to discharge his obligations by due performance of his duties. The present suit 
was a suit for a decree under section 92 of the Code and since it was not filed in 
conformity with the requirements of that provision of law it was not maintainable. 
It is well settled that the maintainability of <he suit under section 92 of the Code 
depends upon the allegations in the plaint and does not fall for decision with re-
G 
ference to the averments irr the written statement. The plaintiffs in their plaint 
did not in terms ask for the one or the other reliefs mentioned in se1;tion 92 ( 1). 
They, however. alleged act~ of breach of trust, mismanagement. unrlue inter-
ference, with the right of the _,public in· the worship of Granth Saheb. 
They 
wanted a decree of the court against the aopellants to force him to carry out the 
objects of the trust and to perform his duties as a trustee.' [J7A-B] 
ARGUMENTS 
For th' A nvellants : On reading the entire plaint the reliefs claimed are cover-
H 
eel by s. 92(1 )(a) to (h) Code of Civil Proc !dure. 
(i) The plaint clearly shows that the property involved is trust property and 
that the trust is a public trust or charitable and religious nature. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
F 
G 
H 
CHARAN SINGH v. DARSHAN SINGH ( Untwalia, ]. ) 
4 9 
(ii) The plaint also shows that the aim was for benefit of the public. 
(iii) Reliefs claimed fall within Sub..C/a~se (e).-The place where 
Guru 
Granth Sahib was placed wa·s called "Darbar Sahib" where it was to be recited 
and where Sat Sang and Amrit Pan Ceremony were to l:e held. The reach alleged 
is that the appellant is not using the "Darbar Sahib" for the purpose for which it 
was dedicated and further says that the villagers have a right to recite and wor-
ship Granth Sahib 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.