IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Section 92 CPC is limited to protecting public trusts of a charitable or religious nature and does not apply to disputes over the nature of the trust itself.

JUDGMENT :

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24/07/2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.182 A/2008 whereby the appellant has been non-suited by invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2. (A) The brief facts of this case are that a declaratory suit for declaration and injunction was filed by Shrinivasacharyaji and Badrinarayan Tripathi. The pleading of the plaintiff shows that in the year 1935 Late Swami Ram Prappannacharya, who was devotee of Lord Vishnu, purchased a land at Juni Line, Bilaspur. Subsequently, a temple was constructed in the year 1941 and Idol of Lord Vyankatesh was religiously installed on 10th May, 1945. Late Swami Ramprapannacharya Ji had two followers devotee namely Late Shri Radhakrishna Gadodiya and Late Shri Laxminarayan Agrawal. Shrinathmal Gadodiya who was the adopted son of his brother Shri Sitaram Gadodiya and second son was Madhav Hari. Radhakrishna Gadodiya and Nathmal Gadodiya purchased the adjacent land in the year 1945-46 to the southern part of the temple. Late Ramprapannacharya had one son namely Nrasinghacharya who left four sons out of which two are the plaintiffs.

(B) On 22/09/1951 gift deed was executed by Late Shri Ramprapannacharya Ji, Shri Radhakrishna Gadodiya, Late Shrinathmal Gadodiya and Late Shri Laxminarayan Agrawal and dedicated the properties which are in dispute to Idol of Lord Vyankatesh. As per the gift deed 9 member committee was constituted and Swami Sudarshanacharya was decided to be the Head (Pradhan Mantri) of the Committee and their successor will continue to hold the said post according to their Guru Parampara. Due to this arrangement one member will always be there from Ayodhya Math; Swami Ramprapannacharya was described as Sevayat of the trust and his successors will continue to hold the said post; and family of Radhakrishna Gadodiya was declared as Sarvarakar. The dispute started when few of the Manager Sarvarakar proceeded to declare the trust as a public trust. The plaintiff participated in the proceeding before the public trust, however, by an order dated 28/01/2008, the Registrar, Public Trust under Sections 4 & 5 of Public Trust Act, 1951 declared the subject suit property to be a public trust property. Both the plaintiffs, who are son of Nrasinghacharya, who was son of Swami Shriramprapannacharya, challenged the finding of the Registrar, Public Trust. During the pendency of the same an application was filed initially under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC by the defendant the other trustee but the same was dismissed by order dated 06/12/2008. Subsequently, the plaintiff also filed an application under Section 92 of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to carry on the proceeding. The said application was dismissed on 13/01/2017. Subsequently, a preliminary issue was framed by the Court and again on 24/07/2017 the application under Section 92 read with Section 151 CPC and the preliminary issue which was framed as Issue No. 6A, was adjudicated, which resulted into dismissal of the suit. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court completely misjudged the provisions of Section 92 of the CPC. He would further submit that Section 8 of the Act, 1951 the civil suit are required to be filed against the finding of the Registrar. He would further submit that the very declaration of the fact that the nature of the trust is a public trust which was directed by an order dated 28/01/2008 was under challenge and the plaintiff claimed that it was a private trust, therefore, the provisions of Section 92 CPC was misapplied. He would further submit that on the earlier occasion on 13/01/2017 when an application was dismissed under Section 92 of the CPC it could not have been adjudicated again by the Court while passing the order of dismissal. He went through the pleading and the prayer to submit that if th