Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.92 – Suit filed by appellantsplaintiffs (husband and wife) who are Trustees of 1st defendant Trust, a Public Charitable Trust – Four trustees under the Deed of Trust are both the plaintiffs and defendant nos.2 & 3 (parents of 1st plaintiff and his brother-4th defendant) – Suit was filed for framing scheme for administration of the Trust – It was inter alia pleaded that 1st plaintiff is a qualified surgeon and the 4th defendant who did not have any medical qualification/expertise to run the hospital and manage the Trust had been in control of the Trust and the objects of the Trust were not getting fulfilled; and that the plaintiffs were sought to be removed from the board of trustees – Along with the aforesaid Suit, plaintiffs also filed application seeking leave to institute the suit u/s.92, CPC – Leave granted u/s.92 – Respondent no.2 sought revocation – Leave granted not revoked – Respondents filed revision petition – Allowed – Held: Three conditions are required to be satisfied for invoking s.92 – Admittedly, the concerned Trust is created for public purposes of charitable nature – Also, plaint made out a case that the trust was being run as a private family trust; its object was being ignored; and that there was necessity to frame a proper scheme for its administration through competent persons – Further, what was complained was that the appellants were removed from the board of trustees and none of the present trustees are from medical profession – It is in that context that the principal relief prayed was for framing of a proper scheme of administration and appointing trustees including the first plaintiff along with other trsutees from medical profession and from the public – Relief prayed for cannot be said to be in the nature of vindicating personal rights of the first plaintiff – Aforesaid relief was prayed so that the Trust which was founded with the object of making available medical and related services to the general public could achieve its objectives through trustees who are well qualified to undertake such responsibility – If in respect of a trust which had set up a hospital, a request was made for framing of a proper scope of administration by appointing trustee from medical profession and from public for proper administration of the Trust, the matter would definitely fall within the scope of s.92 – View taken by High Court is set aside – Decision of District Court restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to invoke Section 92 of the Code and to maintain an action under said Section, namely, that the Trust in question is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; there is a breach of trust or a direction of Court is necessary in the administration of such a Trust; and the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs as enumerated in said Section. Consequently, if any of these three conditions is not satisfied, the matter would be outside the scope of said Section 92. In the instant case, it is admitted that the concerned Trust is created for public purposes of charitable nature. The matter on that front is beyond any doubt. As regards the second condition, paragraph 21 of the plaint makes out a case that a public charitable trust was being run as a private family trust; that the object of the Trust was being ignored; and that there was necessity to frame a proper scheme for administration of the Trust through competent persons. The second condition also stands satisfied. Insofar as the third condition is concerned, the reliefs prayed for are diverse which include inter alia framing of a proper scheme of administration, for removing certain trustees and appointment of fresh trustees from medical profession and from public and for other ancillary reliefs. [Paras 13, 14][995 E-H; 996 A-D]
1.2 In the present matter, the appellant No.1-first plaintiff, as a qualified medical professional, was associated with the Trust and what is being complained is that the appellants have been removed from the board of trustees and none of the present trustees are from medical profession. It is in that context that the principal relief prays for framing of a proper scheme of administration and for appointing trustees from medical profession and from the public for proper and effective administration of the Trust. The expression “including the first plaintiff” has to be understood in the context that the first plaintiff, as a qualified medical professional, was associated with the Trust right since the inception but now stands removed. The relief prayed for cannot be said to be in the nature of vindicating personal rights of the first plaintiff. What was prayed was for framing of a proper scheme of administration so that the Trust which was founded with the object of making available medical and related services to the general public could attain and achieve all its objectives through trustees who are themselves well qualified to undertake such responsibility. The substance of the matter discernible from para 21 as well as the principal relief claimed in the suit is quite clear that what was being agitated were the public rights. If in respect of a trust which had set up a hospital, a request was made for framing of a proper scope of administration by appointing trustee from medical profession and from public for proper and effective administration of the Trust, the matter would definitely fall within the scope of Section 92 of the Code. The view taken by the High Court is set aside and the decision arrived at by the District Court is restored. [Paras 16-18][999 E-H; 1000A; C-D]
Chairman Madappa v. M.N. Mahanthadevaru and
Others [1966] 2 SCR 151 – followed.
Bishwanath and Anr. v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors. [1967] 2 SCR 618; Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia [1969] 3 SCR 83 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.