apptrcabie, Section 92 CPC provides for severai retiefs in retatron to a trust property and suit on behaff of the trust is maintainabie and not a suit simpiicitor as fiied the plaintiff. 5. That in the present sui.t,rei_iefs_«so'u"g.h_t.tor by plaintiff (respondent) are squareiyvireovnjereid piroirisftxns
of Section 92 CPC and hence’,’iV_ti:–e. suites ‘flied”.:ia§}=r.iti’z.eVptaintiffiiT’
is not maintainabie. _On this___i:t§as’1sr.__rejeCti«on_ of? plaint as
barred under law, is sought, to it
6:’: In of’ the learned
counsei flgwoiuld submit that
A.N.i?¢rst is no doubt a religious
and ehiaritabie represented by sole trustee Sri
Mr. A_.G.Ran:aVnath’,*« A”{pia”iwntiff). He has filed a suit as a
5′..U5t€”é'”‘i”r’i” the management to Drotect the
toheutrust. That the defendants have no manner
ot’rj_ioht,.titie or interest in the trust, They are strangers.
\,Their aotwities in misrepresentations they are trustees of
“t’tis:.e»_”tAéf_r:;st has adverseiy affected the trust. The defendants
were mduiging in acts to iiquidate the properties of the trust
by més representing and hence the Judgment and decree is
2″‘; »
get
i
EN
;
8
sought ts éeciare that defendants have no manner of right
or interest in the property. He submits that sincerjthfe’-«.re£.iA’ef
sought is to declare that the properties desoribe’ti”5.i’h.
schedule are the properties of the….tr_u4st eh’d””ptfQ\ii’sionVsagi”r
Section 92 CPC is not appiicabie.
37. The contentions o’f”rtioth sid’esV_ reveeiiked my’
consideration.
8. It is not in Zdirspute sought by the
plaintiff agai_h§st in Para~3 of
the order. iittiiiteeyeé W.ts¢¢tfor tioubt that plaintiff has
thewsuit schedule property and
also for sVVd’irectin.g 1 to 11 to deliver the
possession of to the plaintiff ~ trust. At the first
‘i V’ “v.,loo’i<-it a'ppea_rs thavtmthie suit is brought on behalf of the trust
._.b"ut'. t'iie:"etheirA»..reji..iefs sought in the piaint makes it clear that
the.__4"Vttief_ehtiia:i;t No.1 claims to be the sole trustee.
f_'Undou.btedlvy, A.G.Ramanath ciaims to be the sole trustee.
it "Xftieiiti–oes' not dispute that the trust is a express religious and
Aiheriiitabie trust. The question would be whether the reiiefs
it sought in the suit fails within the provisions of Section 92
CPC.
9
9. Respondents Counsel has relied or?i’-thej}:i”§Ci§sienl’v.
of Privy Council in the case of O..~Rm,A
P,L,l\.E,K,M. NAGAPPA CHETTIAR A:;zi’o1’é;NoTi–ie_vR
AIR 1941 PC 1, dated 17~o94i.sz:~o_, whherein as P:ri’vy’vVVC’ounci’i’il’
adjuciieating the suit sezeking elseel:a’rat’io_n ot§se–rxzed.,:thus:
“It was suggested “ih ._ rgument
that the, been brought
with the the :§_Advoeate General
under their Lordships
su_chvVeoVnsent is necessary
lr:i”_’0″rc’;le’r may recover trust
property “l1a:’rids of a stranger to the
_;t’ru_st”‘a V’ 1 V”
_V learned counsel has also relied on the
Court in the case of BISHWANATH AND
V –V ANo’*’reE?i§v§’sRI THAKUR RADHA BALLABHJI AND OTHERS
AIR 1967 SC 1044, wherein it is held as follows:
H”It is settled law that to invoke $92 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 3 conditions have to
be satisfied, namely, (i) the trust is ereatecl for
public purposes of a charitable or religious
nature; (ii) there was a breach of trust or a
purchasers from defendant 1 had aiready
acquired possession of the properties soid to
them, a claim for possession of these)”-.
properties was made and the possession vs-as-.:’f”–«_V”‘–
asked to be delivered to defendant 1 ;.
manager and trustee of the temple.
Held — that a suit for a der;lara’tS..o’ndrthia-tdthelf-..__
property in suit belongs to a pubfic trusltiodf a
religious and charitable “‘s.ljiaracter’—-dhidr~..ti’:ota”fa’lVl'”
within the mischief of S.VA.9-2,.”-_ t 1
12. The disputeltheretfolre, down to one
question as to§.vrE:.et_’iner the suit maintainable in
view of the Sejiztion:’:92’Cr.-P.C.
._ Thve’*ur’:disipjute&ii…fact~s are :
_A_.N.Via’radaraj-.ului_ Charitable Trust is undoubtedly a
“iv”~..reli<;}.id'us–t..anid. charitable trust. It came into existence as
_irnp.ii"ed:tr:usit'"'a_nd.. thereafter it is now express trust by virtue
of' tru_st'i1_. 'Edeed dated 22–O2–1967' registered
docurriient No.2797/196667. Therefore, it is express
"'–t:*t.ist"i::y virtue of deed of trust and hence its management
has to be as per terms and conditions of the said deed. It is
also riot in dispute that under the said deed the founder
15. The present suit is brpught by A.G.Ramanath
claiming himself to be the soée trustee of A.N,\faradarajulu
Charitabie Trust; The suit is presented to seek reliefagainst
defendants for deciaratiori of ownership of”.
property. The piaint averments and other detaiiisvshioirrlfthlatfll’
the suit prayer is to seek reCpver§5Vo’f’thes propert_*;_a*i*.’d to
keep the defendants away from :4the’:gr:ana.:g_erneetiV
trust on the basis that they ar:e”i.strang–e_rs:.r:”.:Ali”t.:rel’iefs are
thus in reiation to .h:.anag’enden’t V’otf._’the’Vt’ru’st and its
properties.
16. to see that the first
prayer_i_n__the..p:l’aiet_ ownership of the suit
schedple defendants 1 to 11 to
deiiver possesslion:ioifpltthletpéroiperty to the trust. As could be
seengfroim Clanus.e:V(r:) pf Section 92 CPC the relief is virtually
:fve_st»i.ng_:’a..n_y property in a trust. Therefore, though by
ifdifferen’tiaph__ral§s’eoiogy it is used in the plaint but ‘declaration
is us’oug;;Vh.t”t.o declare plaintiff trust is the owner of the
scn.,e.dul’e property and for direction to defendants 1 to 11 to
Atielhi/er possession, which amounts seeking deeiaratipn of
“Vifestirzg of property in the trust.
1?. Besides; piaint aiiegations speiis out ist-dispute
among trustees who are claiming to be iawfuiiy’atioéditnted
trustees, while describing others as strangers;.__\«”is:a.:iz’i:%;
same contention is put forward by”‘trie.de:.fendaiits a’s.i’twe’ii. 2
It is further noticed that piaintiff
deed dated 22411-2009 executed by ‘deienda’ntA».i§io…V1VVas nu?-if
and void. That deed undoubteVd’i’yt:_ig.figr Eeihoyiai trustees
from the trust. Therevfefe,_w2_hen»th’e_’gr,e’iief sought for in the
suit relates to trust vwhi,:c’_h-. charitabie in
nature and suit falls under
Section . _ ._ .. .
__ xa’iinthnevrei”ofe.,..satisfied that the suit as brought
by the te.sgoonde’n2t not maintainable and it fails
under.,5ectioo.V_92″ CPCT and hence piaint fiied by the
é””pet’i’tionE’eii viiiithout rettourse to section 92 and without leave
-..ot” the’ :ou.sift isfnot maintainabie.
the resuit, the revision is aiiowed. The
‘}.:inipi;.gnVé’d order dated O9–11~ZOO9 in (3.8. No 3516/2009 on
iiie of the XXI Addi. City Civii Judge at Bangaiore, is
2 “hereby set aside The appiication flied by the piaintiff Under
Oréer VII Rule 11{d) read with Section 151 air? the Cofie cf
Civfi firoceciure, 3.998, is afiiowed. The Qiamt stands rejected.
\/K