A civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for framing a scheme for a public trust except in conformity with the provisions of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT COMMITTEE HAS CEASED TO EXIST - PRAYER FOR FRAMING SCHEME - SECTION 92, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - OUSTER OF JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the committee of a High School had ceased to exist due to non-holding of meetings as required by the rules. During the pendency of the suit, they sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer for framing a scheme for the management of the school. The trial court allowed the amendment, but the defendants challenged it in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the amendment was not permissible as it would fundamentally change the character of the suit and oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The court found that the High School was a public trust and that suits for framing a scheme for such trusts could only be brought under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which conferred jurisdiction only upon the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to the plaint would fundamentally change the character of the suit and oust the jurisdiction of the civil court? 2. Whether a High School is a public trust and whether suits for framing a scheme for such trusts can only be brought under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the amendment would fundamentally change the character of the suit as it would introduce a new cause of action and relief, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. 2. The court held that a High School founded on public contributions and maintained by public cooperation is a public trust. Suits for framing a scheme for such trusts can only be brought under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which confers jurisdiction only upon the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court allowing the amendment, and held that the suit could not be maintained as it was barred by section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application under order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Gode for amendment of the plaint in O. S. No. 176/54 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada. The suit was instituted in a representative capacity against the defendants, members of Sri edupuganti Raghavendrarao Memorial Committee, Gudlavalleru for a declaration that the committee has ceased to exist by reason of not holding meetings as required by the rules governing the administration of the institution and for an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 10 from functioning as members of the Gommitcee and for others reliefs. The suit institution a High School was started in or about the year 1945 with donations and subscriptions from the public. The founders of the school framed the bye-laws and articles of Association and had them registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock companies. It is alleged in the plaint inter alia that under rule 8 of the regulations for the governance of this institution any member of the committee who failed to attend consecutively three meetings would cease to be a member thereof and that since no meetings were held for six months the members of the committee have ipso-facto become defunct and they had no power to hold a meeting subsequent to that date. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint by adding a prayer:"if in the circumstances of the case this Hon ble Court deems it necessary to frame a scheme constituting a Committee of management and empowering one member of such committee to act as the President and another member to act as Secretary from out of General Body of Donors and subscribers and to vest the management and the properties of the school in the said committee embodying such necessary directions in the scheme with a view to carry on and facilitate the management of the school and its property. "

( 2 ) THIS petition was opposed on various grounds, the one relevant for the purpose of this enquiry being that section 92, Civil Procedure Code was a bar to it. The trial court allowed the amendment notwithstanding this opposition of the defendants. Tn this revision petition, the propriety of the order is canvassed. The contention pressed upon me by the counsel for the petitioners is that the. trial Gourt could not allow the amendment as it would fundamentally change the character of the suit and would oust its jurisdiction. The answer of Mr. Suryanarayana, counsel for the respondents to this is that the nature of the suit is not in any way altered, the body of the plaint remaining intact and there being only an addition to the relief and that section 92, Civil Procedure Code is inapplicable to this case. According to him, the amendment would not bring the suit within the. ambit of section 92 for the reason that a High School cannot be regarded as a charitable institution and that in any event it is a private trust. It is difficult to agree with these propositions. An institution started for imparting education surely comes within the scope of section 92, for the purpose for which it was started is of a charitable nature. I am convinced that a school of this description certainly attracts the provisions of section 92, Civil Procedure Code.

( 3 ) THE next submission of Mr. Suryanarayana, namely that it is a private trust and therefore civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for establishing claims for private trust is equally untenable. He placed before me a number of rulings of the calcutta High Court and the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy council in Gopal Lal Sell v. Puma Chandra Basik, (1921) L. R. 49 I. A. 100 : I. L. R. 49 Cal. 459 : 43 M. L. J. 116 (P. C.) which laid down that it was competent for a Civil Gourt to settle claims for the administration of private trusts. The principle underlying these pronouncements would apply only if the present one is regarded as a private trust. Therefore, it is not necessary forme to examine the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1955 Supreme(AP) 282

Andhra Pradesh High CourtSri Edupuganti Raghavendra Rao Memorial High School Committee, Gudlavalleru - AppellantVersusPotluri Atchayya - RespondentDecided On : 11-11-55

A civil court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for framing a scheme for a public trust except in conformity with the provisions of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Sri Edupuganti Raghavendra Rao Memorial High School Committee, Gudlavalleru - Appellant
Versus
Potluri Atchayya - Respondent
Decided On : 11-11-55