The central legal point established in the judgment is the unique jurisdiction conferred by Section 92 of the CPC, emphasizing the responsibility of the court to oversee the management and affairs of public trusts in the interest of the general public.

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 15.10.2015 disposing of CS(OS) 958/2003 - filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).

2. The brief facts are that a Public Trust known as “Shri Gurudev Ashram” was created by a deed dated 22.04.1973. Late Shri T.N Khanna was one of the original trustee/donor - he was impleaded as second defendant in the suit. At the time of creation of the Trust, five trustees were nominated; two of who died and two resigned. Consequently, only one, i.e., the original settler survives. According to the terms of the deed, the vacancies in the Trust were to be filled by nomination by Swami Muktananda Paramhansa in terms of condition no.8 which is extracted below: -

“8. Shree Swami Muktananda Paramhansa shall always have the power to appoint a person as an additional Trustee or to fill any vacancy in the office of the Trustees of the Trust.”

3. The plaintiff/appellant sought and was granted leave to file the suit under Section 92 of the CPC. The principal reliefs claimed were two fold - one is incorporation of a proper appointment mechanism to facilitate the smooth functioning of the Trust in the event of vacancies in the Trust caused either by death, resignation or otherwise; the other was framing of a scheme, more importantly, after amendment of certain clauses (apart from clauses 8, 9, 17, 18 & 19 of the deed) and settlement of the proper scheme for administration.

4. Learned Single Judge who tried the suit heard the parties and on 10.10.2012 indicated that it would be in the fitness of things if some independent individuals unconnected with the Trust or the denomination were to be nominated as Trustees. Consequently, the suit was adjourned for further proceedings. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of the entire suit. The relevant observations leading to the disposal/termination of the suit are as follows: -

“2. Before me today the only relief which is prayed on behalf of the plaintiffs is that sufficient number of trustees be appointed and who are independent persons, so that the trust functions in accordance with the purposes of the trust. The object is to ensure that such persons are appointed as trustees who have stature and would run the trust and achieve the purposes of the trust. In the order dated 10.10.2012, it is recorded that uneven number of trustees are to be appointed, and today it is agreed that the following five persons can be appointed as trustees of the trust:-

(i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit Prakash Shah (retd. Chief Justice of this Court) resident of F-15, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110016, Mobile No.9910160007.

(ii) Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manju Goel (retired Judge of this Court), resident of R-128, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-110048, Mobile No.9818000330.

(iii) Mr. P.K. Saxena, ADJ (retd.) resident of Flat No.261, Plot No.5, Sector-9, Dwarka, New Delhi, Mobile No.9910384668.

(iv) Ms. Rekha Chandok (daughter of Sh. T.N. Khanna, the settler of trust, and who is defendant no.4 in the suit), resident of 13, Chinar Drive, DLF Farms, Chattarpur, New Delhi 110030, Mobile No.9810185516.

(v) Ms. Ruchi Ahuja (daughter of Sh. T.N. Khanna and wife of Mr. Divey Ahuja), resident of A-53, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048, Mobile No.9810263450.

3. This Court, at this stage, need not go on the aspect as to how the trust should be directed to function including by framing a scheme of management, inasmuch as, once persons of stature have been agreed to be appointed by this Court as trustees as stated above, this Court does not find that there will arise any difficulty in carrying out the purposes of trust and running the trust in accordance with the purposes of trust as set out in the trust deed. Of course, any decision under Section 92 CPC, whether of this suit or of any other suit, cannot/does not operate as res judicata or final for all times because on a fresh cause of action arising i.e. fresh f