SRI AUROBJNDO ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS. versus R. RAMANATHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 05-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] I S.C.R. 74 
SRI AUROBJNDO ASHRAM TRUST AND ORS. 
v. 
R. RAMANATHAN AND ORS. 
(Civi!Appea!No. l2of2016) 
JANUARY 5, 2016 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.92 - Suit under - By the 
persons concerned with the appellant-trust (Aurobindo Ashram 
Trust) - Praying for removal of the trustees of the appellant-Trust 
as the trustees failed to support the tenets and philosophy of Shri 
C 
Aurobindo - It was alleged that the trustees failed to take any positive 
action to prohibit the availability of an objectionable book 
(biography of Shri Aurobindo written by one of the inmates of the 
Ashram, which contained distortions relating to life of Shri 
Aurobindo) or dissociate themselves from it and instead assisted 
D 
E 
F 
G 
the author - Leave to sue was granted - Defendants' application 
for revocation of leave was dismissed - In revision, High Court 
interalia held that since the defendants did not take any action to 
secure bar of the objectionable book nor take any action against 
its author, the suit u/s. 92 is maintainable and the application to 
revoke the leave was rightly rejected - On appeal, held: In deciding 
whether the suit falls within the ambit of s.92, the Court must consider 
the purpose for which the suit was filed - In the present case, purpose 
to file the suit was to highlight the failure of the Trustees to take 
action against the availability of the book and against its author -
Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the philosophical 
and spiritual guru of a Trust would not fall within the compass of 
administration of the Trust - Such failure does not give rise to a 
cause of action for removal of the trustees and for setting a scheme 
for its administration - The suit does not fall within ambit of s.92 -
Application for revocation should have been allowed - Trusts and 
Charities. 
Administration of Justice - Advise of the Court to resort to amicable 
dispute resolution mechanism, to settle the disputes. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is only the allegations made in the plaint that 
H ought to be looked into in the first instance to determine whether 
74 
SRI AUROBlNDO ASHRAM TRUST v. R. RAMANATHAN 
75 
the suit filed lies within the ambit of Section 92 CPC. If the A 
allegations in the plaint indicate that the suit has been filed to 
remedy the infringement of a private right or to vindicate a private 
right, then the suit would not fall within the ambit of Section 92 of 
the CPC. In deciding whether the suit falls within the ambit of 
Section 92 of the CPC, the Court must consider the purpose for 
B 
which the suit was filed. [para 31] [88-H; 89-A] 
1.2 Considering the purpose of the suit filed by the 
respondents, it is quite clear that it was to highlight the failure of 
the appellants to take action against the availability of the 
objectionable book and against the author. The issue whether 
the book is objectionable or not, whether it deserves to be C 
proscribed or not, whether it violates the provisions of Section 
153-A or Sectiou 295-A IPC has yet to be determined by the 
Orissa High Court. Until that determination is made, it would be 
premature to expect the appellants to take any precipitate action 
in the matter against the author. [para 32] [89-B-C] 
D 
1.3 The best that the appellants could have done under 
the circumstances was to make it clear whether they have anything 
to do with the objectionable book or not. The High Court has 
noted quite explicitly that the appellants have not sponsored the 
book nor was it published under the aegis of the Aurobindo 
E 
Ashram. The appellants have also expressed displeasure with 
the contents of the objectionable book. This being the position, 
the appellants have done what could reasonably be expected of 
them in relation to the objectionable book, pending a 
determination by the Orissa High Court. [para 33] [89-D-E] 
1.4 The appellants chose only to express their displeasure 
may be construed as a mild reaction (as compared to outright 
condemnation of the objectionable book), particularly since the 
appellants had nothing to do with its publication. But the mild 
reaction cannot be considered perverse or could not in any way 
F 
be held to be a breach of trust or an absence of effective G 
administration of the Trust warranting the removal of the trustees. 
Failure to take steps to ban a book that is critical of the 
philosophical and spiritual guru of a 

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