Purpose Of Section 92 CPC Is To Regulate Process Of Seeking Vindication Of Rights In Public Trusts Of Religious Or Charitable Nature & Not To Prohibit It: Karnataka HC
|The Karnataka High Court observed that the purpose of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is to regulate the process of seeking vindication of rights of public in Public Trusts of religious or charitable nature and not to prohibit it.
The Court observed thus in a miscellaneous first appeal challenging the order of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge passed under Section 92 of CPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravi V. Hosmani emphasised, “… when there is no requirement either prescribed or laid down in any decision that plaintiffs would be required to make allegations against each of trustees, assigning said reason by learned trial Judge, would also be contrary to law. Yet another factor that requires to be taken note of is that purpose of Section 92 is to ‘regulate’ process of seeking vindication of rights of public in Public Trusts of Religious or Charitable nature and ‘not to prohibit’ it. Nowadays public trusts are holding/managing resources of enormous value both in terms of monetary value or beliefs.”
The Bench added that while definitely requiring protection from unnecessary and frivolous interference by way of litigation, regulation in nature of prohibition would have an equally undesirable result, which cannot have been intention of legislature while enacting Section 92 of CPC.
Senior Advocate M.R. Rajagopal represented the appellants while Senior Advocate R.S. Ravi represented the respondents.
In this case, the appeal was filed praying for grant of leave to institute a suit for removal of trustees, appointment of new trustees, administrator, and for setting a scheme in respect of the respondent Trust. The respondent was a public trust managing Dodda Mavalli Bilsilu Maramma Temple, Bengaluru. It was submitted that the petitioners were residents of Mavalli village and devotees of deity ‘Maramma’ and had concern for temple and its properties.
It was submitted that most of the respondents were leading luxurious life even without any avocation, job, or business, which clearly signified that they were misusing funds of temple for their benefits. Hence, with intention to protect temple and its properties, petitioners had sought leave under Section 92 of CPC to file a representative suit. It was submitted that though petitioners had alleged misuse of funds and properties of trust, the Trial Court refused to grant leave merely on ground that the petitioners had bald allegations without production of documents.
The High Court in view of the above submissions noted, “… Trust was Religious and Charitable nature and about allegation of breach of trust. As noted above, reliefs sought for are due to breach of trust directions of Court were necessary for administration of Trust. Prayer for removal of trustees would fall within sub-clause (a) of Section 92 (1). Likewise, prayer for appointment of new trustees would fall under sub-clause (b); prayer for settling of scheme under sub-clause (g) and appointment of administrator under sub-clause (h) of Section 92 (1) of CPC. Therefore, reliefs sought for would be amongst those stipulated in Section 92 of CPC. Therefore, all three requirements held mandatory by Courts appear existing.”
The Court further said that the observation by the Trial Court that plaintiffs failed to produce prima facie material to probabilize contentions, reference to assertion of defendants in objections about accounts of Trust being audited would be contrary to law, especially when examination of plaint is at nascent stage of suit.
“And Court would be required to keep in mind that plaint need not be encyclopedia of all facts [Indra Raja (Dr.) v. John Yesurethinam, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2048] and stage for substantiating allegations in plaint would be in trial. Therefore, conclusion of trial Court on this count would be untenable”, it remarked.
The Court also observed that when there are several plaintiffs who have joined in filing suit, refusal to grant leave by pointing out disability which may apply to one or few of them would not be proper. It enunciated that merely on ground that one or some of plaintiffs had failed to take action against breach earlier cannot be ground to reject application, especially when suit under Section 92 would be in nature of representative suit and refusal to grant leave would likely bar fresh suit.
“As this would be a drastic consequence, it would be appropriate to hold that in case of doubt, benefit at stage of grant of leave should go to applicants. Therefore, unless trial Court finds any material to arrive at conclusion that suit is vexatious normally leave should not be denied on hyper- technical or oversensitive”, it added.
The Court concluded that if it is found that plaintiff failed to establish any of necessary factors, then suit must be dismissed and that such a view would also be in tune with consistent view that appreciation of application for leave under Section 92 of CPC is to be considered in manner similar to an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title- G.S. Sudharshan & Ors. v. Grama Seva Sangha Trust & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:35664)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate M.R. Rajagopal and Advocate Raghu Prasad B.S.
Respondents: Senior Advocate R.S. Ravi, Advocates B. Roopesha, Sandeep M.K., and Ajith Kalyan.