LexSWAMI PARMATMANAND SARASWATI & ANR. versus RAMJI TRIPATHI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
790
SWAMI PARMATMANAND SARASWATI & ANR.
A
v.
RAMJ[ TRIPATHI & ANR.
Augusi 21, 1974
[A. N. RAY, C.J. AND K. K. MA THEW, J .l
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) s. 92-Suit undt:r-Tcsts for.
B
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.
Th!rea.fter, the appellants, after obtaining the permission of the Advocate Gene-
ral, filed the suit under s. 92. C.P.C., against the first rtspondent. They allege,!
~~~n~h~i~~:i~;dst~~:doffm\~~/
1
~~~ f~~ fi~:t er~~~d~~ h1~ :~il~h~ere~~isi~~
C
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 properth:s.
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 prop:rties.
The trial court and High Court he·ld that the suit was only for the vindication
D
of the right of K and was therefore not maintainable under s. 92 and Jis-
rniss·.::d the suit.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD· : (I) This Court would not dis~urb 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.
[SOOE-G]
E
(2) A suit under s. 92, C.P.C., is a suit of a special nature which pre·sup-
t
poses the existence of a public trust of ~ religious or charitable character. \.Yhen
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 thei plaint.
The sui~ can proceed only on the allegations that
there was a breach of such trust, or that the direction of the court is necessary
F
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 subsiantiated 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 ot
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 ('Jr person~!
'
rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in
G
whon1 they are interestod then the suit would be outside the scope of s. 92.
~
\Vhen the right to the office of the_tru'itees is a·sserted or denied and r{'lief
asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside s. 92.
There is no reason to think
.,
that whenever a suit is brought by t'vo 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 wns
brought.
[799D-800A]
Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kununu Afia, (1969) 3 S.C.R. 83, followed.
II
Shan1ukhan v. Govinda, A.LR. 1937 Madras 92. Tinunalai Deva.wha1u11na
v. Krishanayya, A.LR. 1943 Madras 466, approved.
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
PARMATMANAND v. RAMJI TRIPATHI (Mathew,!.)
791
( 3) If oli the alle,ations in tho plaint it is clear that tho purpose of the
s.uit was to vindicate th~ individual right of I<.. to be tho head of the math
there is no reason tn ho!J that the 1uit was brought to uphold the right of -the
b:neficiaries of th~ trust. merely becanse the suit was filed bY two or more
memb:rs of the public tlter obtaining the -sanction :>f the Advocate General
and one or more of thei reliefs specified in the section are claimed therein. Tue
relief regarding· tho appointment of KExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.