The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec.92 of C.P.C. for seeking leave to file a suit for the proper and efficient administration of a temple, including the requirement of alleging breach of trust and the necessity of including all relevant parties in the proceedings.

M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.

Challenge is made to an order of dismissal made by the learned Single Judge in Application No.3578 of 2003 filed under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to file the suit.

2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. The averments in the plaint, the affidavit in support of the application and the counter affidavit are looked into. The order under challenge is also perused.

.3. The appellants as plaintiffs made the said application under Sec.92 of C.P.C. seeking

.leave to file the suit for the reliefs found therein, alleging that the suit is filed for approval of the scheme of trust for the proper and efficient administration of the affairs and properties of the first defendant temple which is in the sole control and custody of the second defendant. The plaintiffs are Jains by birth and persuasion, and they are regular devotees and worshippers of the first defendant temple. The first plaintiff was nominated as one of the members of the High Level committee in the meeting dated 24. 2003, to finalise the draft trust deed for the administration of the first defendant temple.

4. It is further alleged by the plaintiffs that Shree Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Temple situated in 38, Venkatachala Mudali Street, Choolai, Madras, was constructed and consecrated by the family members of Seth Shri Kaluram Ratanlal Maloo (natives of Phalodi, Rajasthan) in the year 1896. The same was managed for a period of 36 years. Thereafter, it was handed over to the devotees of the temple who were residing at Choolai, Veperi and Purasawalkam areas, in the year 1933. They were called as members of Shree Choolai Bazaar Jain Sangh. They were managing the temple administered by the Trustees. Thereafter, the management of the temple and properties were carried on by the decision taken by the devotees. Then, it was shifted to a single Trustee called Potedar on whom the general body of the temple placed utmost faith. The temple management was continued without any written constitution of trust or registration of the Devotee Association. In a general body meeting dated 4. 1985, there was a unanimous resolution to have the written constitution. Accordingly, the adhoc committee prepared the trust deed based on the resolutions, and the general body in the meeting on 10. 1989, unanimously elected the board of trustees and office bearers of the trust as required in the constituted trust deed which consists of 17 trustees and also the Potedar. The trust deed was unanimously approved. The second defendant who is the younger son of the erstwhile Potedar, took personal responsibility to transfer the accounts and other documents for the functioning of the trust. The board of trustees could not function since there was no proper handing over of proceedings. The second defendant unilaterally convened a general body meeting on 1. 1993 overlooking and ignoring the elected board of trustees. Despite protest made by several members, the second defendant contested for the post of Potedar and declared as elected unanimously. He was acting all along against the wishes of the senior general body members. Thus, the written constitution of the trust was not implemented, and the duly elected trust board and its office bearers could not assume office.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the second defendant with the assistance of the supportive group was managing the affairs of the temple in his own way and to his advantage. But, the members did not have any power or authority to question the same. The several members in the general body meeting on 24. 2003, pressurised the Presiding Potedar, the second defendant herein, to constitute a High Level Committee for review and adoption of the written constitution of the trust. It unanimously approved the previous trust deed with minor alterations and additions thereto on 7. 2003, which is marked as document No.2. In the subsequent general body meeting held on 20.7.2003,