A suit under S. 92, C. P. C. is maintainable only if it is brought to vindicate the right of the public and not to assert the individual or personal rights of the plaintiffs or third persons.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants appeal.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to Sikh Gurudwara, Tehri. The respondents Ram Singh and Sant Ram as plaintiffs brought Original Suit No. 254 of 1971 on Dec. 20, 1971, under S. 92, Civil P. C. with the leave of the Advocate-General dated 15th April, 1968 against Qabul Singh, Nanak Singh, Arjun Singh and Bir Chand defendants-appellants. About three quarters of a century ago the then Maharaja Tehri Garhwal dedicated land for the establishment of a public Gurudwara to benefit all such residents of Tehri who profess faith in the Sikh religion of Guru Granth Sahib. The Maharaja brought into existence a public trust of religious and charitable nature. The affairs of the Gurudwara were managed by residents of Tehri professing faith in the Sikh religion of Guru Granth Sahib.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs further allegations are that in 1950 the residents of Tehri professing faith as aforementioned at a meeting formed a body known as the Gurudwara Committee, Sri Guru Singh Sabha. They elected a Managing Committee of which Kabul Singh (Defendant No. 1) was the President/manager. The Gurudwara has been, it is contended, under the management and control of the Managing Committee on behalf of the (sic) mismanaged and in a chaotic state. Certain members of the general body called a general meeting on 31st Oct. 1966 and held fresh elections of the Managing Committee where-by the old Committee (including Qabul Singh) was ousted. This, according to the plaintiffs, was followed by scramble and dispute for power, control and possession between the erstwhile President and the newly elected members of the Managing Committee.

( 4 ) THE defendant No. 1, Qabul Singh, it is averred, asserts exclusive right to manage the Gurudwara independently of any Managing Committee referred to above. Accounts have not been rendered by him. The services attached to the Gurudwara are not being properly attended to. Conflicting stands were taken by the defendant No. 1 at different stages. The defendants interfere in the management and advance claims on the Gurudwara and are made parties to this suit as they claim themselves to be the trustees and also because all or some of them can be said to represent the Gurudwara.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs-respondents are themselves residents of Tehri having faith in the Sikh religion of the Guru Granth Sahib. They are worshippers at the Gurudwara and as such persons interested. The relief claimed is that the present trustees of the trust in suit be removed; a scheme for the management of the trust be framed; new trustees in accordance with such scheme be appointed; rendition of accounts be directed and such other relief as is required be granted.

( 6 ) IN defence to the suit it was pleaded that the Maharaja Tehri Garhwal had founded the Gurudwara in Tehri on a piece of land belonging to the State and entrusted the management thereof to Tara Singh (brother of defendant No. 1) with the right to nominate his successor. The Maharaja had also sanctioned recurring grant of Rs. 200/- per month. It was a religious endowment; it is denied that there was a public trust created of religious or charitable nature. The residents of Tehri were not entitled to intermeddle nor was any meeting held in 1950 or 1966 as the plaintiffs contend. It was denied that the affairs of the Gurudwara are mismanaged. The entrustment of the management to Tara Singh was subject to the control of the Maharaja. The defendant No. 1 claims the right to manage now under the control and the supervision of the Board of Management constituted in terms of the Agreement dated 22nd Jan. 1965 entered into by the Maharaja Tehri Garhwal with the State Government in pursuance to the letter of Government of India dt. May 18, 1949 which was collateral to the Merger Agreement. The overall control which vested earlier in the Maharaja is now exercised by the aforesaid Board of Management. The right of the plaintiffs to maintain the action under S. 92 Ci