Back
Allahbad High Court
T.S.MISRA
Dhirendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
Dhanai - Respondent
Decided On : 03/30/1982
PUBLIC TRUST - SUIT UNDER SECTION 92, C.P.C. - EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC TRUST - ENDOWMENT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 92, C.P.C. - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - CONSENT OF ADVOCATE GENERAL - RELIEF CLAIMED - PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE TRUST - DISTINCTION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) alleging the existence of a public Math and endowment of properties to the Math and deities installed therein. The defendants contested the suit, denying the existence of a public Math and the endowment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a public Math and the endowment of properties to the Math and deities. The court also held that the suit was not maintainable under Section 92 of the CPC as the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature.
Issues: 1. Whether there existed a public Math and endowment of properties to the Math and deities installed therein. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of the CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. To maintain a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature must be established. 2. The distinction between a public and a private trust is that in the former, the beneficiaries are the general public or a class thereof, while in the latter, the beneficiaries are specific individuals. 3. The consent of the Advocate General is required for instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, and the relief claimed in the suit must be one or more of the reliefs mentioned in the section.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a public trust and that the suit was not maintainable under Section 92 of the CPC.
The legal document details a case involving a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which pertains to disputes related to public trusts of a religious or charitable nature. The key points are as follows:
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging the existence of a public Math (a religious institution) and endowments of properties to the Math and installed deities, with the purpose of maintaining the Math and its activities (!) (!) .
The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the properties were personally owned by the defendant No. 1 and not held in a public trust or for religious or charitable purposes. They also denied the existence of a public Math or endowment (!) (!) .
The court examined the evidence and found that the properties in question were held personally by the defendant No. 1 and his ancestors, rather than being endowed for public or religious purposes. The properties were not dedicated to any public trust or deity, and the alleged Math did not meet the criteria of a public trust (!) (!) .
A crucial requirement for maintaining a suit under Section 92 is the proof of the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature, with the beneficiaries being the general public or a class thereof. The suit must also be initiated with the consent of the Advocate General, and the relief sought must align with those permissible under the section (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a public trust or endowment, and therefore, the suit was not maintainable under Section 92. The evidence did not support the claim that the properties were dedicated to religious or charitable purposes or that they belonged to a public Math (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court noted that certain reliefs sought by the plaintiffs, such as declaring properties as endowed and canceling transfers, were not permissible without the specific sanction or consent of the Advocate General, which was not obtained for all reliefs (!) .
Based on these findings, the court dismissed the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirming that the legal requirements for a suit under Section 92 were not satisfied in this case (!) .
In summary, the case underscores that establishing the existence of a public trust and compliance with procedural requirements, including the Advocate General's consent, are fundamental for maintaining a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. The absence of proof of a public trust leads to the dismissal of such suits.
2. The allegations in the plaint are these; There existed an old public Math situate in village Agthara Narayanpur, Pargana Birhar, Tahsil Tanda district Faizabad. Within the Math there is a public temple in which are installed the "Deities" of Shri Sitaram Ji Maharaj and Hanuman Ji etc. For the upkeep of the Math and maintenance of the Seva, Puja, Utsav and Samaiya of the said deities, over and above the seasonal contributions of the produce of lands, immovable property comprising lands in the villages detailed in Schedules A to E attached to the plaint inclusive of groves detailed in the said Schedules were endowed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 to the Math and the deities installed therein. Ever since the endowment which had taken place long before the British period the income and the produce of the said lands and property were used for the aforesaid purpose. Shri Rachpal Giri Virakt Chela of Shri Ram Ratan Giri who was impleaded as defendant No. 1 in the suit was said to have succeeded his Guru Shri Ram Ratan Giri in 1925 A.D. Due to the extreme weakness and infirmity of old age he became incapable of properly managing the property and its income and was completely in the hands of his Mukhtar and nephew Dhanai and his wife and children for whom he has built a new house mentioned in Schedule A. In order to secure cash sums as much as possible by the transfer and collusive decrees of landed property of the Math Dhanai got several transfer deeds executed by the defendant No. 1 in his favour and others. The defendant No.1 also executed a sale-deed dated 26-6-1959 in favour of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000.00 with respect to the land of village Agathara mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint though there was no justification for the same. The defendant No. 1 also parted with immoveable property of village Rampur district Azamgarh mentioned in Schedule A by entering into collusive decrees. He was thus out to waste the entire property; hence it became necessary to file the suit for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the various allegations made against him in the plaint. He asserted that the property is not a public trust nor did it belong to any math. He also stated that he was a Gosain and his ancestors house was situate outside the Abadi area of the village where there was no temple or Thakurdwars. There was only one Kachcha house of defendant No. 1 which was not a Math nor it could be said, to be a public Math. He denied that the idols of the deities Thakur Ji and Hanuman Ji were installed in any temple as alleged. Further he stated that the entire land in dispute was personally acquired by his ancestor Bhakhtawar Giri Gosain and he was the absolute owner thereof in personal capacity. No part of the disputed property was ever the property of a Math or a public Math. The suit was said to be not maintainable under Section 92 of the Civil P.C. He also contended that for the last several decades the plaintiffs had been making effort to deprive him of his properties but had failed to do so. He referred to various cases which had been filed in that connection and denied that any of the properties in dispute ever belonged to the ancestors of the plaintiffs or to the plaintiffs themselves. The defendants Nos. 2 to 4 also contested the suit and filed a separate written statement repudiating various allegations made in the plaint. Replications were thereafter filed by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned District Judge :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs have a right of suit?
2. Whether there is any public Math in village Agthara Narainpur and the properties detailed in list b are
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
