SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1042

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
S. Thiruvengadam – Petitioner
Versus
Srimathi Ranganayaki and Sri Sriramulu Educational and Public Charitable Trust – Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) No. 1583 of 2023, C.M.P. (MD) No. 7754 of 2023
Decided On : 15-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Issac Mohanlal.
For the Respondents: H. Lakshmi Shankar, A. Senthilkumar, H. Thayumasamy, D.S. Neduchezhian, A. Baskaran

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while leave to file a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. can be granted, it does not prevent defendants from contesting the maintainability of the suit based on the applicability of the section.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE - PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST - Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - The court discussed Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows for suits concerning public charitable trusts. It highlighted that the section aims to protect such trusts from harassment and requires a prima facie case for leave to file a suit. The court emphasized that the merits of the case need not be adjudicated at the leave stage, and the maintainability of the suit can still be contested by the defendants.

Fact of the Case:

The Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, granting leave to the second and third respondents to file a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code concerning a public charitable trust. The petition was originally filed in the Principal Subordinate Court and later transferred to the District Court, where the leave was granted.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court's order granting leave under Section 92 C.P.C. was appropriate, as it did not bar the defendants from contesting the maintainability of the suit. The court noted that the trial had already commenced, and it would not be proper to delve into the merits of the case at this stage.

Issues: Whether the trial court's order granting leave to file a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. was justified and whether the defendants could contest the maintainability of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that granting leave under Section 92 C.P.C. is an administrative action and does not preclude the defendants from raising issues regarding the maintainability of the suit. The court emphasized the necessity of a prima facie case for granting such leave and that the merits of the case could still be examined during the trial.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, allowing the trial court to consider the applicability of Section 92 C.P.C. along with other issues during the ongoing trial.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order and decreetal order passed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur in I.A.No. 131 of 2022 in UF OS dated 05.09.2022 granting leave to the second and third respondents to institute the suit in the name of the first respondent Trust under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No. 131 of 2022 in unnumbered suit dated 05.09.2022, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur, granting leave to file the suit under Section 92 C.P.C.

2. Originally, the said suit was filed before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur and the petition filed under Section 92 C.P.C., was taken on file in I.A.No. 54 of 2021 in unnumbered suit, that the revision petitioner / first defendant along with the fourth defendant has filed a Tr.O.P., in Tr.O.P.No. 29 of 2021, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur seeking transfer of the petition in I.A.No. 54 of 2021 in unnumbered suit on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur to the file of the Principal District Court to try along with the suit in O.S.NO. 42 of 2020, pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur and that the learned Principal District Judge, vide order dated 10.06.2022 allowed the transfer petition and ordered to withdraw the petition in I.A.No. 54 of 2022 in unnumbered O.S., pending on the file of the Principal Subordinat Court, Thanjavur and transfer the same to the Principal District Court, Thanjavur. After transfer, the petition filed under Section 92 C.P.C., was taken on file in I.A.No. 131 of 2022 and the learned Principal District Judge, upon considering the pleadings of the parties and arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order allowing the petition filed under Section 92 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the order granting leave, the first defendant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned Principal District Judge, by observing that there is no bar for filing the petition under Section 92 C.P.C., by the Trustees as against Co-Trustees, that the relief to be granted under Section 92 C.P.C., for leave to file the suit is only an administrative action and the merits of the suit claim need not be adjudicated, passed a brief order allowing the petition.

4. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have filed a lengthy affidavit running to 22 paragraphs in 17 pages in support of the petition filed under Section 92 C.P.C., and whereas the revision petitioner/first defendant and the fourth defendant have filed a lengthy counter statement running to 23 paragraphs in 12 pages.

5. A suit under Section 92 C.P.C., is a suit of special nature. Generally the Court is considered as the guardian of the Public Charitable Trust / Institution. The Courts have a general parens patriae jurisdiction over the trusts of charitable and religious nature and the Courts are bound to guard the interest of the trust, since it involves the question of public interest. In the case of Chairman Madappa vs. M.N. Mahanthadevaru and Others, 1966 AIR 878, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble supreme Court has held that the main purpose of Section 92 C.P.C., is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Section 92(1) C.P.C., has specifically observed that the said section provides for two class of cases, namely, (i) where there is a breach of trust in a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, and (ii) where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. In order to invoke Section 92 C.P.C., the following conditions ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top