Section 92 CPC suits against public trusts require three conditions: public charitable/religious purpose, breach or need for court direction, specified relief. Trial courts must analyze averments and objections before refusing leave.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MAHRA, J.

1. 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 respondents have formed a registered society in the same name as that of the trust and are sipho