The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in a suit involving two trusts.

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5506/2017 on the file of XVII Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru (trial court) are the appellants. They have challenged the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the trail court rejecting the plaint upon an application made by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of CPC.

2. The appellants brought a suit against the respondents for the following reliefs.

"(i) Pass a judgment and decree of declaration declaring that Sri Venkateshwara Education trust registered on 03.08.2002/1st plaintiff herein, as valid one and acted upon.

(ii) Pass a judgment and decree of declaration declaring that Sri Venkateshwara Education trust registered on 10.08.2005/1st defendant herein, as a trust which was never acted upon, and the same is non-est in the eye of law.

(iii) Issue a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to handover the administration of the 1st plaintiff trust and its educational institutions, along with the records/documents/assets/bank account balance, which were received by the defendants on 31.10.2014 in the presence of the Deputy Registrar, City Civil Court, Bengaluru

(iv) Direct the defendants to furnish the books of accounts/status of assets, from 31.10.2014 to till the day of handing over the charge back to the 1st plaintiff or its office bearers.

(v) Direct the defendants to hand over the educational institutions that are functioning in the address of the 1st defendant, subsequent to 31.10.2014, which stand in the name of the 1st plaintiff, with affiliations and sanctions that stand in the name of the 1st plaintiff trust

(vi) Pass a judgment and decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their agents, workers, employees or anybody authorized by them from in any way interfering with the day to day affairs and administration of the 1st plaintiff trust dated 03.08.2002.

(vii) Pass such other orders, as the plaintiff is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings".

3. The respondents made an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint, as the suit against 1st defendant, in particular, was not maintainable since leave of the Court under Section 92 CPC had not been obtained.

4. The trial court entertained the application and rejected the plaint.

5. Assailing the impugned order the argument of learned senior counsel for appellant is that the trial court's conclusion that leave under Section 92 of CPC is necessary, is opposed to law. It appears that the trial court has come to this conclusion merely for the reason that 1st respondent is a Charitable Trust. It has not been noticed that 1st appellant is a trust. No relief as can be sought for under Section 92 of CPC has been sought in the suit. The trial court appears to have not understood that real lis between the two trusts cannot be brought within the ambit of Section 92 of CPC. The trial court's order is bad and unsustainable. In support of his argument he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Rathnamma Vs. B.A. Srinivasa Gupta and others,1998 SCC Online(Kar) 662.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent argues that the trial court has rightly come to conclusion to reject the plaint. The nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit very much falls within the scope of Section 92 of CPC. May be that 1st plaintiff is a trust, but the 1st defendant is also a charitable trust. Whenever a suit is filed against a trust, leave contemplated under Section 92 CPC is a must. The 1st defendant has also filed a suit against the plaintiffs, by obtaining leave. In the said suits, initially, the Civil Court rejected the application for leave. The same was challenged by the defendants by preferring an appeal to this court. Appeal was allowed, the Civil Court was directed to consider the application of the defendants again. This order was challenged by the appellants by preferring Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court.