SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI & ANR. versus SATYA GYAN NIKETAN& ANR.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 23-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 365 
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI & ANR. 
A 
v. 
SATYA GYAN NIKETAI\ & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3166of2017) 
FEBRUARY23,2017 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, :fJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 92 - Public charities -
Permission to grant leave uls. 92 to interested persons to initiate a 
suit - On facts, property transferred-waqfed to respondent no. 2 by 
a deed - Appellant interested in achieving the purpose for which 
the property was transferred - Application by appellant uls. 92 to 
obtain permission to institute a suit, allowed - However, the High 
Court set aside the order - On appeal, held: Property was waqfedl 
gifted for a 1Gl1:fiil purpose-a 'trust' - Thus, the application filed by 
appellants was within the required ambit of s. 92 and the District 
Judge rightly permitted the appellants to institute a suit - High Court 
erred in setting aside the well reasoned order and in not diligently 
examining the facts and circumstances in the light of the registered 
deed - Furthermore, it was the statutory duty of the Court to examine 
that whether the plaint is so annexed with the application uls. 92 
which is pre-requisite for filing the application for leave to file a 
suit - High Court also erred in neglecting this fact - A/legations 
put forth could only be determined by way of evidence in a special 
suit uls. 92 and respondent No.2 is enjoying the ownership of the 
immovable property while acting as a trustee - Thus, for the ends 
of justice, appellants granted liberty to move appropriate 
application. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of the Section 92 CPC would 
show that a suit can be instituted in respect of a public trust by 
the advocate general or two or more persons having an interest 
in the trust after obtaining leave of the Court in the principal civil 
Court of original jurisdiction. An analysis of these provisions would 
show that it was con·sidered desirable to prevent a public trust 
from being harassed or put to legal expenses by reckless or 
365 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
366 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
frivolous suits being brought against the trustees and hence, a 
provision was made for leave of the Con rt having to be obtained 
before the snit is instituted. [Para 12] [371-C-D] 
1.2 On considering the trust deed executed in the favour 
of respondent No.2-Prachaarini Sabha, it is noticed that the 
purpose of transferring ownership of the property was subject to 
certain conditions and purposes which cast duties on respondent 
No.2, including development of the Hindi Language and opening 
a library. Hence, the purpose is rendering the nature of Sabha to 
be a trust. It can be inferred from the perusal of the application 
made that plea was sought to seek permission only to institute a 
suit alleging the Sabha to be acting as a trust. [Paras 13, 14) [371-
E-G] 
1.3 It appears that the property was waq fed/gifted for a 
lawful purpose i.e. a 'trust' is an obligation annexed to the 
ownership of the property, and arising out of a confidence reposed 
in and accepted by the owner, or declared and accepted by him, 
for the benefit of another, or of another owner, (Act II of 1882 
Trusts, Section 3]. Accordingly, the application filed by the, 
appellants was falling within the required ambit of Section 92 CPC 
and the District Judge rightly permitted the appellants to institute 
a suit. The High Court erred in setting aside the well reasoned 
order of the Judge and grossly erred in not diligently examining 
the facts and circumstances in the light of the registered deed. 
[Para 18] [377-D-F] 
1.4 The plaint was not annexed with the application filed 
under Section 92 CPC which is pre-requisite for filing the 
application for leave to file a suit. Based on the averments in the 
plaint only, it can be inferred that whether an application under 
Section 92 is maintainable or not. [Para 19] (377-G-H] 
1.5 After the amendment was brought to the Code of Civil 
Procedure in 1976, duty was cast upon the Court, instead of 
Advocate General, to take into account these considerations for 
granting leave under this section. Prior to the 1976 amendment, 
all these considerations were to be kept in mind by the Advocate 
General before granting consent to institute a suit against a public 
trust. It was the statutory duty of the Court to examine that 
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI & ANR. v. 
SATYA GYAN NIKETAN 
w

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