The revision is filed challenging the leave granted to respondents 1 to 3 to institute a suit under Section 92 CPC against the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6, among whom respondent No.4 is stated to be a public religious trust. The revision petitioner was the third counter petitioner in the petition for leave which is numbered as O.P.No.1/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Prumbavoor. Parties are hereinafter referred to as petitioner and respondents as ranked in the above O.P. before the court below.

2. Petitioners in the O.P. applied for leave under Section 92 CPC to institute a suit in respect of the fourth respondent, a public religious trust, setting forth a case that the trust has been created with the objective of spreading the teachings of Jesus Christ and it is governed by the provisions of a trust deed executed on 14.4.1987. Claiming to be the beneficiaries of that trust leave was applied for to sue the respondents. It was challenged jointly by the third and sixth respondents contending that the O.P. was not maintainable. It was further contended that the reliefs claimed in the proposed suit had already been agitated by some others and found against in a previous suit, O.S.No.231/2002 before the Sub Court, North Paravoor. They also contended that the present petitioners who applied for leave, are close relatives of the plaintiff in the above suit and, further, the first respondent is not a public trust.

3. The first respondent, public trust, was represented by its managing trustee, the second respondent. The managing trustee, the second respondent alienated the immovable properties by way of registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 3 and 4, and thus committed gross abuse of his office of trust and rendered himself unfit to hold the office of trustee, according to the petitioners, who claimed that they are beneficiaries of the trust having sincere and real interest in its affairs. The alienation of the trust properties effected by the managing trustee is liable to be declared as invalid treating it as ab initio void and for that relief a suit has to be instituted, was the case canvassed by the petitioners seeking leave under Section 92 CPC.

4. Other than marking of the trust deed as Annexure A1, no other material was placed before the court to determine the grant of leave under Section 92 CPC for instituting the suit, which was disputed. Learned Sub Judge after hearing both sides and examining A1 trust deed, formed a preliminary view that the deed disclosed that the first respondent is a public trust created for preaching Bible to the public at large. In taking a view that the allegations raised in the plaint alone need be looked into to determine the question of leave under Section 92 CPC, negativing the objections raised by the third and sixth respondents leave was granted to institute the suit. Order of the court granting the leave is impeached in the revision contending that it suffers from material irregularity and jurisdictional infirmity in not properly and correctly examining the question of leave with reference to the reliefs that can be claimed in a suit filed under Section 92 CPC.

5. Inviting my attention to the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the proposed suit after obtaining leave which is stated in the O.P., learned counsel for the 3rd respondent (review petitioner) submitted that the reliefs sought in the suit is outside the scope of Section 92 CPC. No relief other than a declaration that the alienation made by the managing trustee is not binding on the trust and it is ab initio void, is claimed as a relief in the proposed suit is pointed out by the counsel to contend that such a suit is not maintainable under Section 92 CPC. To buttress the argument so canvassed, the learned counsel relied on Bishwanath and Another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and Others (AIR 1967 SC 1044), Johnson D. Po Min and Another v. U Ogh and Others (AIR 1932 Rangoon 132) and Umasanker and Others v. Sali