There is no need to knock the door of Company Court.

RAMACHANDRA IYER C.J.

This is an appeal against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli returning a plaint presented in due conformity with the provisions of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for presentation to the proper court, the company court. One Manthiram Pillai established on 15th May, 1918, a middle school for the benefit of the general public of Tirunelveli Town. In a short time the school developed into a high school and the founder in order to put its management on a firm basis executed a document vesting the school and its properties in a committee called the Manthiramurthi High School Committee providing, inter alia, for the appointment and succession to the office of the members of the committee. The committee was registered under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (which corresponds to section 25 of the 1956 Act). That provides for the incorporation of associations which are not formed for the purpose of making any profit in the sense in which it is commercially understood

There can be no doubt that the endowment will constitute a public charitable trust

The appellants claiming themselves to be interested in the trust and alleging that there has been a breach of trust and that directions of the court were necessary for the due administrations of the same, instituted a suit in the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, for setting a scheme for the sue administration of Sri manthiramurthi High School at Tirunelveli and for other reliefs. They had earlier obtained for the suit the sanction of the Advocate-General. To the suit the managing committee were impleaded as party defendants. The defendants contested the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the sub-court, Tirunelveli, had no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the proper forum for settling a scheme was the company side of this High Court. it was urged that the managing committee had been duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, and as under that Act there exist provisions for settling a scheme, e.g. sections 398 and 493 of the Companies Act of 1956, there was a special law applicable to the case and that, therefore, the jurisdictions of the civil court was ousted. This contention had been accepted by the learned subordinate judge, who returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal against the order returning the plaintWhile holding that the company court alone had and the civil court had not the jurisdiction the learned subordinate judge was labouring under a misapprehension. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code confers jurisdiction upon a court in matters relating to administration of public and religious charities with a view to protect the rights of the public; for this purpose it enables the Advocate-General as well as the persons interested in the trust with the sanction of the Advocate-General, to stop the misuse of its funds, for the framing of a scheme for the due administration of the trust etc. This provision had nothing to do with any vindication of private rights. Section 398 of the Companies Act of 1956 is, on the contrary, concerned with private rights. It confers on a member of the company to obtain relief from the court in certain circumstances where the company is not properly managed. That is a right given to an aggrieved member of the company itself and outsiders will have no right to apply thereunder

Mr. Balasubramaniam appearing for the respondent-committee contended that in a case where a company is appointed as a trustee of a public, religious, or charitable institution, the provisions of section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code will apply; but he contends that it will be different if the company is created solely to fulfil a charitable purpose. In such a case, learned counsel says that the company or association of persons registered under section 26 of the Indian Companies Act has no existence apart from the charitable purposes