LexVIDYODAYA TRUST versus MOHAN PRASAD R & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 569 "' VIDYODAYA TRUST A v. MOHAN PRASAD R & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 2008) FEBRUARY 27, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) ~ ... Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; s. 92/lndian Trust Act, 1882; s.34: Public Trust of religious/charitable character - c Maintainability of suit u/s. 92 CPC in respect of administration of - Held: Object of s.92 of the Code is to protect the public trust of religious nature from harassment by filing suits against them - From averments in plaint, if it transpires that personal rights of some persons vindicated, no action under provisions D ~ --""., of s. 92 CPC would lie - Object and purpose of filing suit is of paramount importance and not the relief - The Court has to go beyond the relief to find out the purpose behind filing the suit and also to find out the possibility of suit filed by persons whose activities were not for protection of interests of public E trusts - In the present case, inconsistent colour of legitimacy sought to be given by projecting as ifthe suit was for vindicating public rights but the emphasis was on certain purely private ...... and personal disputes - Hence, High Court was wrong in • holding grant of leave by the Court as legal and proper. F Respondents filed a petition before the Court of the District Judge under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 in respect of administration of the appellant-trust. The Trial Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable. The respondents filed an application seeking leave of the G Court to institute the suit under Section 92 of CPC. I.A. 't .... was allowed by the Court granting leave to file the suit. Appellant alleged that leave to file the suit was granted to the respondents without serving notice to it. The Court 569 H 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A held that the suit was maintainable. Questioning . correctness of the order, a petition for revision in terms of Section 115 CPC was filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition, B which was dismissed by the High Court. Both the orders were challenged before this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The appeal was disposed of by this Court holding that Civil Revision Petition was maintainable and directed the High Court to dispose of the Revision c Petition. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition holding that though there were certain personal reliefs claimed as evident from the prayer portion, but that was not sufficient to hold that the suit was not for protection of interests of public trust but to 0 claim and enforce private or personal rights; that there would be need for public notice under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in a suit under Section 92; and that though there were certain inadequacies they did not vitiate the proceedings. The Civil Revision was accordingly dismissed. Hence the present appeal. E Appellant contended that though the High Court correctly formulated the issue that there is no bar on trustees instituting the suit in terms of Section 92 CPC, yet there has to be a pointed consideration as to whether F they were verblating a private or personal grievance or vindicating public rights in respect of trust in representative character. But having said so, it did not consider the true nature of the suit filed; that even on a cursory analysis the position is clear that the plaintiffs G were highlighting personal grievances; that plaintiff No.1 was a Vice Chairman, Plaintiff No.3 is the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and most of the allegations of alleged improper action revolved round close relatives of these two plaintiffs; that the dispute is essentially an inter-trust H dispute; that it is desirable that before the leave is granted ~· VIDYODAYA TRUST v. MOHAN PRASAD R & ORS. 571 ... in terms of Section 92 CPC the other side should be heard; A -.. and that all the allegations are personal grievances. Respondents submitted that while deciding on the question whether leave is to be granted the statements in the plaint have to be seen and not to the allegations in the B written submissions; that though the general principle may apply to the facts of the present case, what is • ,¥ expected to be seen is if the trust has acted as a prudent man would do and the standards of care and cauti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.