The court affirmed that leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. can be granted based on a prima facie case, emphasizing the need for equitable administration of public trusts.

ORDER :

The revision petitioners are respondents 1 to 5, 10 to 12, 14, and 16 in O.P.(Others) No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. O.P. (Others) No.7 of 2022 is an application filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to institute the suit.

2. Briefs facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: The leave under Section 92 is sought to frame a settlement for the 1^st respondent/Devaswom to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 to 17 and people under them from the administration of the 1^st respondent Devaswom, 5^th respondent temple, and respondents 6 to 8 to appoint new trustees or administrators to the 1^st respondent Devaswom and its institution and for other reliefs (the parties are referred to as they appear in the court below). The 5^th respondent/temple was founded more than 200 years ago by the Hindu public of Ithithanam. All denominations and communities of Hindus worshipped in the temple as of right. It has been recognised as a public temple from its inception. An agreement was entered for the administration of the temple and registered as document No.6/1960 before the S.R.O., Changancherry. In the said agreement, the ultimate authority of the temple/Devaswom was vested with the general body, which consisted of male members or the descendants of each Hindu home, who were major. All such persons have a right to be members of the general body subject to the conditions in the deed. Thus, the public nature of the temple and Devaswom is specifically stated in the said agreement.

3. The petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein are the worshippers of the temple and beneficiaries of the temple and Devaswom. The poojas and festivals are conducted in the same way as in public temples, and the offerings are received from all Hindus. All the Hindus participate in the festival and ceremonies, and they are being conducted with contributions from the public. An educational institution is also conducted under the auspices of the temple/Devaswom. The petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the general body of the 1^st respondent Devaswom. Though the 3^rd petitioner applied for membership in the Devaswom, respondents 3 and 4 did not accept the same. The administration of the temple is illegally conducted by respondents 3, 4, and 9. In 2009, a bye-law was drawn wherein it is specified that the general body shall consist only of Nairs. The said recitals in the bye-law are against the original agreement executed in 1960, avoiding all Hindus and giving preference to Nairs goes the root of the matter. Therefore, there are grounds to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 from being office bearers and also to settle a new scheme. The functioning of the temple is on the basis of illegal bye laws and destroying the basic principles embodied in the agreement dated 19.01.1960. Therefore, interference is warranted by the Court in the administration of the temple for settling a scheme and removal of members from the administrative committees.

4. Annexure-A is filed seeking leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 13, and 15 to 17 have filed a detailed objection. The main contention is that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and the subject matter does not come under the purview of Section 92 of C.P.C. The allegation that the Hindu community founded the temple was denied. The entire property in which the temple and other institutions function is owned and possessed by a few Nair families who had been the Karayogam of Ithithanam. The Karayogam administered the entire property and the temple. The administration of the temple had been done by the Karayogam by appointing appropriate persons through registered deeds. Though the temple is open to all persons, the same is not a public temple and has not been dedicated to all sections of Hindu communities in Ithithanam. Membership in the Devaswom is not a matter of ri