High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
R. Kannan Adityan & Others
Versus
B.S. Adityan & Others
O.S.A. Nos. 54, 62 to 64, 128 & 129 of 1996
Decided On :Decided On : 16-07-1996
The Court held that an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for leave to institute a suit is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Court also held that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, or Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, are not applicable to an application under Section 92, CPC, for leave to institute a suit. The Court further held that the main purpose of the provision under Section 92, CPC, is to give protection to public trust of a charitable or religious nature, from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for leave to institute a suit against the respondents for alleged breach of trust and mismanagement of a public charitable trust. The respondents filed an application to dismiss the application in limine under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, on the ground that the proposed suit was frivolous and vexatious. The trial court allowed the respondents' application and dismissed the appellants' application. The appellants appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that an application under Section 92 of the CPC for leave to institute a suit is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. The Court also held that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, or Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, are not applicable to an application under Section 92, CPC, for leave to institute a suit. The Court further held that the main purpose of the provision under Section 92, CPC, is to give protection to public trust of a charitable or religious nature, from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them.
Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for leave to institute a suit is administrative in nature or judicial or quasi-judicial? 2. Whether the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, or Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, are applicable to an application under Section 92, CPC, for leave to institute a suit? 3. What is the main purpose of the provision under Section 92, CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An application under Section 92 of the CPC for leave to institute a suit is administrative in nature and not judicial or quasi-judicial. 2. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, or Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, are not applicable to an application under Section 92, CPC, for leave to institute a suit. 3. The main purpose of the provision under Section 92, CPC, is to give protection to public trust of a charitable or religious nature, from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appellants' appeal and set aside the trial court's order dismissing the appellants' application. The Court directed the trial court to consider the appellants' application on merits.
SRINIVASAN, J.
1. O.S.A. Nos. 62 to 64 of 1996 arise out of one proceeding viz., Application No. 33 of 1994 filed by the appellants for leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. O.S.A. No. 62 of 1996 is against the order dismissing the said application for leave to sue. O.S.A. No. 63 of 1996 is against the order allowing Application No. 2421 of 1994 filed by respondents 1 to 3 for dismissing Application No. 33 of 1994 in limine under Sections 92 and 151, C.P.C. O.S.A. No. 64 of 1996 is against an order dismissing Application No. 1030 of 1994 filed by the appellants for amendment of the proposed plaint. All the three applications are disposed by a common order dated 21.12.1995.
2. The facts leading to the present proceedings are as follows:— One S.B. Adityan, familiarly known as Si.Pa. Aditanar in this State, executed a deed of declaration creating a public charitable trust by name “Thanthi Trust”, which is the third respondent herein, on 1.3.1954. Earlier in 1943, he had started a Tamil daily called ‘Dhina Thanthi’ with his own funds. In the Deed of Declaration of Trust, he appointed besides himself, his brother S.T. Adityan and his eldest son B.R. Adityan, who is the first appellant herein, as trustees of the third defendant trust. The purposes of the trust are (a) to establish ‘Dhina Thanthi’ or Daily Thanthi as an oran of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public; (b) to disseminate news and to ventilate opinion upon matters of public interest through the said newspaper; (c) to maintain the said newspaper and its press in an efficient condition devoting the surplus income of the said newspaper after defraying all expenses in improving and enlarging the said news paper and its services and placing the same on a footing of permanency. The deed provided that the trustees for the time being may appoint one of themselves to be the Director of the Daily Thanthi and on such appointment, he shall be designated as such. The deed proceeded to appoint S.B. Adityan as the Director of the Daily Thanthi. A clause in the deed read, ‘The Founder may appoint from time to time inter vivos or by will any persons to be Trustees in addition to or in substitution of the First Trustees or the Trustees for the time being. After the lifetime of the Founder the surviving trustees, and the trustees for the time being may appoint any persons to be trustees or trustees in addition to themselves; and it is the desire of the Founder that if and when such additional trustees are appointed, and if and when a Court has to appoint trustees or additional Trustees, the heirs of descendants of the Founder may be preferred to others. A supplementary deed was executed on 9.7.1957 by which three more clauses were added with reference to remuneration of the trustees excepting the founder, the exercise of the power conferred on the trustees or director being confined to the purposes of the Trust only on the irrevocability of the Trust.
3. On 11.7.1957, one Ramarathinam was added as a Trustee. By a deed dated 6.11.1957 the first appellant herein was appointed as Director of Daily Thanthi, as the Founder had resigned on that day and relinquished his Directorship. On 19.5.1959, the first appellant resigned from the Trust and relinquished his position both as Trustee and as Director of Daily Thanthi. On 22.5.1959, respondents 1 and 2 herein were appointed by a deed as Trustees of the Trust and the first respondent as the Director of the newspaper. By a Supplementary Deed dated 28.6.1961 executed by the Founder, the newspaper Daily Thanthi was placed on a permanent footing and the surplus income of the Trust after defraying all expenses was directed to be devoted for six purposes named therein. That document also refers to the Trust as a Public Charitable Trust. On 8.11.1961, the Founder resigned from the Trust.
4. The brother of the Founder, Mr. S.T. Adityan and three others filed Originating Summons in this Court in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.