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

2026 Supreme(UK) 227

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Naveen Singh Rana and Another – Appellants
Versus
Swargashram Trust And Others – Respondents
Appeal from Order No. 25 of 2022
Decided On : 02-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Umar and Mr. Kundan Rai, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Upadhayay, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, learned counsel.

To maintain suit under Section 92 CPC against public charitable trust, three conditions must be met: public purpose, breach or need for direction, specified relief; court must verify public protection intent over personal rights.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Suits against public trusts of charitable/religious nature - Three conditions mandatory: (i) trust created for public charitable/religious purposes; (ii) breach of trust or court direction necessary for administration; (iii) relief one enumerated in section - If unsatisfied, action outside scope - Court must consider these conditions; analyze plaint averments and objections to ensure suit for public trust protection, not personal rights vindication - Trial court rejected leave fearing multiplicity of suits and lack of documents without addressing conditions - Held unsustainable. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Appellants filed application for leave under Section 92 CPC alleging trustees in illegal possession, siphoning assets to registered society against endowment objects for Hindu sadhus, pilgrims etc.; sought decrees for property restoration, accounting since 1964, removal of trustees, new administration scheme - Respondents denied mismanagement, alleged appellants' personal motives including illegal liquor operations - Trial court dismissed without examining legal conditions.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order set aside as grounds not sustainable; no consideration of Section 92 conditions or defendants' objections.

Issues: Whether trial court properly rejected leave application under Section 92 CPC; adequacy of inquiry into trust nature, alleged breaches, reliefs, and public vs personal purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: Court must go behind relief claimed to eliminate suits instituted for non-protection of public trusts; mandatory consideration of three conditions under Section 92 CPC before granting/refusing leave. Result : Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh decision considering application averments, objections, and observations made.

Table of Content
1. appeal against rejection of section 92 cpc leave application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. swargashram trust established for hindu sadhus' welfare. (Para 3 , 4)
3. alleged trustee mismanagement via parallel society. (Para 5)
4. defendants deny mismanagement; claim personal motives. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
5. leave denied to avoid suit multiplicity. (Para 9)
6. three conditions required for section 92 cpc suits. (Para 10 , 11)
7. assess public trust protection vs personal rights. (Para 12 , 13)
8. remand for reconsideration of pleadings and law. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal from order has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, whereby, the application seeking leave under Section 92 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE for instituting suit against the defendants under Section 92 (1) in Misc. Case No. 41 of 2021 ‘ Naveen Singh Rana and Another Vs. Swargashram Trust and Others ’ has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff-appellants filed an application being Civil Misc. No. 41 of 2021 against the defendant respondent, wherein, they have sought the following prayers:-

(A) To pass a decree for restoration and vesting of the assets/properties of the defendant No.1/Trust by divesting from the grip, clutches and illegal possession of the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 their management, members and goons and agents and servants and advisors whosoever may be;

(B) To pass a decree for accounting of the assets and properties of the defendant No.1/Trust and usufruct thereof since 22/4/1964 against the defendant No. 2, and 3 and 4, their management, members and goons and agents and servants and advisors whosoever may be and to further pass a decree for inquiries against them;

(C) To pass a decree for settling/framing a new scheme of trust for administration of the defendant no. 1/Trust in accordance with the law and spirit of the trust as reflected and intended in the endowment deed by authors thereof by vesting the management of the assets of the defendant No. 1 in the new set of trustee(s) as well as management and accounting of the usufruct thereof by appointing a new set of trustees by removing the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 and all other existing trustees of the defendant No. 1;

3. In the application, it is pleaded that the plaintiffs are Hindus by religion and profess both in letter and spirit all the Hindu rituals and rites by duly performing and solemnizing the ceremonies prescribed by Hindu Vedic and Puranic texts and Hindu Dharmashastras. In the application, it is further pleaded that the defendant no. 1 is a Hindu Public Charitable Trust established by Shree Mamraj, owner of firm M/s Mamraj Rambhagat in 1906. Later on by a registered Endowment deed dated 03.02.1938 and registered on 02.03.1938 by Sri Mangal Chand Dalmia s/o Late Ram Kumar Dalmia R/o Chirawa, State of Jaipur in the then Rajputana (presently Rajasthan) and other Hindus named mentioned in the above said Endowment deed endowed immovable properties to the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 3 and 4 are its trustees at present. The immovable property situated in several places was vested in the trust.

4. That as per the endowment dated 03.02.1938, the object of the trust were declared as hereunder:- “

(a) To establish Chattras for Sadhus, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and other religious minded persons of the Hindu community.

(b) To construct temple, dharmshala, maths, huts, digging wells and to establish schools, libraries, orphanages, hospitals, charitable dispensaries and other works for the use of the members of the Hindu Communities in general and for shadhu, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and religious minded people in particular.

(c) For the maintenance of the said several.

(d) To carry on other acts for the comfort of the Hindu Community in general and for shadhu, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and religious minded people in particular.”

5. In the application, it was contended that the respondent

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