Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
F.A.O. No. 53 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2025
Key Points: - The court held that to grant leave under Section 92 CPC, there must be a prima facie existence of a public trust and a real, substantive, existing right in the applicants (!) (!) . - The court emphasized bonafides and that the suit should aim to address administration of the trust, not vindicate personal rights; mismanagement or trust administrator issues must be established prima facie (!) . - The application must show proper representation of the trust (e.g., the trust or its managing committee must be properly represented) and that there is a need for court direction in the administration of the trust (!) (!) . - The decision notes that mere association with a trust or possession of trust documents is not sufficient for representation; explicit proof of elected representatives or office bearers is required (!) . - The judgment directs that if a trust was created under Ext.A11 but not in operation or if mismanagement is alleged against the trust, the proper course may be to file a separate application under S.92 in relation to the trust itself, not the temple generally (!) . - The court concluded the appeal on the ground that the petition was not properly framed to satisfy all required grounds, leading to dismissal but with liberty to file properly framed applications (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background of the appeal (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trust establishment and management issues (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. dispute parties and procedural positions (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. counterarguments from respondents (Para 6 , 12 , 16) |
| 5. findings on the management of the trust (Para 8 , 9 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. court’s reasoning on s. 92 cpc (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17) |
| 7. dismissal of appeal with liberty (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. Appellants are the Petitioners in O.P. (Trust) No.5/2022 seeking leave to institute a suit on behalf of the 1st Applicant temple under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. The said Original Petition was originally allowed as per the order dated 06.12.2023, granting leave to the Applicants. At the time of passing the said order dated 06.12.2023, I.A No.2/2023 to implead supplemental respondents 7 and 8 was pending. Since the Original Petition was disposed of without considering I.A No.2/2023, this Court set aside the order dated 06.12.2023 as per judgment dt. 10.09.2024 in OP(C) No.463/2024 and remanded the matter back to Trial Court to consider the matter afresh after allowing I.A No.2/2023. Thereafter, the additional respondents 7 and 8 were impleaded in the Original Petition and the matter was re-heard and the impugned order was passed dismissing the Application for leave, holding that there is absolutely no pleading to find any of the grounds specified under S.92 CPC. In the Original Order dated 06.12.2023 Exts.A1 to A16 documents were marked from the side of the Applicants and Exts.B1 and B2 documents from the side of the respondents. In the impugned Order, none of the documents are shown in the Appendix. Since the documents which are shown in the Appendix of the Original Order form part of the records and the relevant documents among them are produced by the parties, I consider those documents as per the making of the same in the original order.
3. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal as revealed from the pleadings are: The 1st Applicant temple is situated in 29.27 Ares of land in Sy.5/8A in Thirupuram Village. Pursuant to the General Body decision on 08/08/1982, Ext.A11 Trust Deed was registered on 14/10/1982 by the Applicants 3 to 5 and others creating a Trust for the management of the Temple. The name of the Trust is ‘Eruvai Bhagavathi Kshethrayogam Trust’. The Trust Deed would show that Applicant No.3 was the Secretary, Applicant No.4 was the Assistant Secretary and Applicant No.5 was the member of the Committee managing the temple as on the date of the Deed. It shows that the Committee was elected every year. The respondents 4 and 5 and certain others filed O.S No. 114/1983 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the property of the Temple. Initially, the suit was dismissed and in appeal, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court. Thereafter, the suit was decreed, declaring the title and possession and passing a consequential injunction. In S.A.No.631/2001, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed by this Court. Even though the respondents 4 and 5 filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same was dismissed. In Ext.A1 judgment dated 12/11/2019 in S.A No. 631/2001, this Court found that the temple acquired the character of a public temple and is managed by a section of people representing the deity represented through its Committee and President. When there occurred a law and order problem, the 2nd respondent/District Collector initiated proceedings under 144 Cr.PC. After the disposal of the Second Appeal, the Applicants along with several persons filed Ext.A3 Petition before the 2nd respondent to get key of the temple from the respondents 4 and 5. When the 2nd respondent refused to take any action on the said petition, the 2nd Applicant filed W.P.(C) No. 3648/2020 to consider the Application and the relief in the said writ petition was declined as per Ext.A4 judgment directi
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear and substantive interest and status of representation in public trust matters under Section 92 CPC to qualify for leave to sue.
The court established that for a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, it is essential to demonstrate a public charitable trust, a breach of trust, and appropriate relief sought, emphasizing the protecti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for managing public trusts involving public charity, and the necessity to implead th....
Establishing a public trust under CPC Section 92 requires clear prima facie evidence of trust existence; without this, applications are not maintainable.
A Trust can seek relief under Section 92 CPC when it is a party to the proceedings alongside interested individuals, especially in cases of alleged mismanagement.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
