Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Locus Standi in Trust Litigation: The concept of locus standi refers to a party’s right to appear and be heard in court. Several sources clarify that only parties with a direct interest or legal right concerning the trust or property can claim locus standi (e.g., DATUK SERI POH GEOK SENG & ORS vs PANG SIEW FIAN & ANOR - 2022 MarsdenLR 672, P.BALASUBRAMANIAN vs VICTORIA @ BALASUNDARI AMMAL - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25114).
Applicability of Section 92 CPC: Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) primarily applies to public charitable trusts. Courts have emphasized that suits concerning public trusts generally require prior leave under Section 92 before filing (e.g., Abhishek Agarwalla VS Kailash Nevatia - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 82, Palani Town Viswa Brahmana Mahajana Sangam (REGD,7/1958) VS P. Thangavel - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1054, PALANI VISWA BRAHMANA vs P. THANGAVEL - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3944), and such suits are typically initiated by persons with a recognized interest or standing in the trust.
Requirement of Leave Under Section 92: Many cases establish that unless the plaintiff has obtained leave under Section 92, the suit may be dismissed or considered not maintainable, especially in cases involving public trusts (Abhishek Agarwalla VS Kailash Nevatia - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 82, Palani Town Viswa Brahmana Mahajana Sangam (REGD,7/1958) VS P. Thangavel - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1054, PALANI VISWA BRAHMANA vs P. THANGAVEL - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3944). The leave is granted after court examination of the applicant’s interest and the nature of the trust.
Defendant’s Right to Oppose: Defendants can oppose the suit on grounds such as lack of locus standi, absence of proper leave under Section 92, or that the suit does not concern a public trust (e.g., THE NELLORE PROGRESSIVE UNION vs THE TOWN HALL TRUST BOARD - 2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11487, V. ANANTHAKUMAR vs VANITHA D/O. PARATHAIYAVELA - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 33592). They can also challenge the standing of the plaintiff to represent the trust or to file the suit.
Distinction Between Public and Private Trusts: The scope of Section 92 is generally confined to public charitable trusts. Private trusts are usually not subject to Section 92, and suits concerning private trusts may not require leave (P.BALASUBRAMANIAN vs VICTORIA @ BALASUNDARI AMMAL - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25114, SRI. KADEKAN PRAKASH KAMATH vs SRI. VITOBHA RUKMA BAI DEVARA BHANDARAM - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40979).
Court’s Discretion and Open Issues: Several judgments note that issues regarding the applicability of Section 92 and the locus standi of the plaintiff are left open to be decided at trial, indicating that these are contested and fact-dependent points (Abhishek Agarwalla VS Kailash Nevatia - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 82, Bhuvaneswari VS Swariz Towraj - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1030).
The legal framework indicates that Section 92 of CPC is a protective procedural safeguard for public charitable trusts, requiring that any suit challenging the trust’s management or property must be initiated with prior leave from the court, and only parties with a recognized locus standi—such as beneficiaries or persons with a direct interest—can file such suits.
Defendants have the right to oppose suits on grounds including lack of locus standi, absence of proper leave under Section 92, or the nature of the trust being private rather than public. Many cases reinforce that suits without adherence to Section 92 procedural requirements or by parties lacking standing are liable to dismissal or rejection.
In summary, Section 92 acts as a gatekeeper for public trust disputes, and the defendant’s right to oppose hinges on whether the plaintiff has established proper standing and compliance with procedural prerequisites. The scope of Section 92 is limited to public trusts, and the determination of locus standi is a key factor in the maintainability of such suits.
References:
In today's legal landscape, concerned citizens often seek to invoke the court's power through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to address systemic issues like money laundering. A common query arises: I am proposed to file a Public Interest Litigation seeking Enforcement Directorate investigation into PMLA Act. Please give me supporting judgments regarding locus standi. This question highlights the critical threshold issue of locus standi—whether the petitioner has the standing to file such a petition.
PILs under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India have relaxed locus standi rules, especially in matters of public importance like corruption or economic offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, courts still scrutinize if the petition serves genuine public interest rather than personal grievances. This blog post delves into key principles, relevant judgments, and practical guidance, drawing analogies from Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for public trusts, which shares similarities with PILs in emphasizing public benefit.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Locus standi refers to the right of a party to approach the court. In traditional litigation, it requires direct personal injury. PILs, however, adopt a liberal approach: any public-spirited individual can file if it involves public wrong or affects public interest, particularly in corruption or breach of trust cases.
For seeking an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe under PMLA, petitioners must demonstrate:- A prima facie case of money laundering or related offenses.- Public interest overriding personal motives.- No private vendetta.
Courts have held that in corruption matters, any member of the society has locus standi to resist withdrawal or initiate action, extending to PILs Pushpa Dharwal VS State Of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1246. This underscores the societal stake in probing economic crimes.
Section 92 CPC governs suits against public charitable or religious trusts, requiring suits to benefit the public or trust, not personal rights. Its principles mirror PIL locus standi:
A suit under Section 92 can be filed by the Advocate-General or two or more persons with court leave, but only if it addresses public rights Bhupinder Singh VS Joginder Singh(d) By Lrs. - Supreme Court. The suit must be for the benefit of the public or the trust itself, not merely for the personal rights of the plaintiffs Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati VS Ramji Tripathi - Supreme CourtBishwanath VS Thakur Radha Ballabhji - Supreme Court.
Similarly, in PILs for ED probes, courts reject petitions disguised as public interest but driven by personal stakes. Defendants (or respondents) in such suits can challenge locus if it seeks personal relief Avadh Kishore Das VS Ram Gopal - Supreme CourtSwami Shankaranand (D) by LRs. VS Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand etc. - Supreme Court.
In trust disputes, courts refuse to reject plaints disclosing a cause of action, preferring trial over threshold dismissal Mahalaxmi Educational Trust, M/s. Cambridge Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai VS R. V. Narasimha Rao - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2492. The court cannot reject a plaint if it discloses a cause of action, and the presence of contentious issues warrants a trial.
In cases involving criminal breach of trust or cheating, the complainant or any other person has locus standi to oppose withdrawal of a case under Section 321 CrPC Pushpa Dharwal VS State Of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1246. Courts adopt a judicial and liberal approach, emphasizing public prosecutor's discretion but judicial oversight. This supports PILs for ED probes, as PMLA offenses often involve corruption.
Even in writs challenging permits, courts upheld locus where fundamental rights like business under Article 19(1)(g) are infringed: the petitioners have a genuine interest in the subject matter under challenge Ashok Kumar VS State of Haryana - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 65. Respondents lacked standing to oppose. Analogously, PIL filers against PMLA violations can claim public right to fair investigation.
Granting Section 92 leave without defendant notice is improper if it upends prior decrees Surya VS Pakkirisa - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 1153. The point for consideration... was whether the plaintiffs... are having locus standi to invoke Section 92 of CPC.
These cases illustrate courts' vigilance: locus exists for public good but evaporates for personal gain Vidyodaya Trust VS Mohan Prasad R - Supreme CourtALL INDIA WOMEN''S CONFERENCES VS SARLA SHAHS - Supreme CourtR. Venugopala Naidu VS Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities - Supreme Court.
Filing a PIL for ED investigation under PMLA demands robust locus standi grounded in public interest. Principles from Section 92 CPC reinforce that suits must protect public rights, not personal ones GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA VS BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS (DEAD) BY LR RAM NIWAS - Supreme CourtASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST - Supreme Court. Judgments like those on corruption locus Pushpa Dharwal VS State Of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1246 and writ standing Ashok Kumar VS State of Haryana - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 65 provide strong support for genuine petitioners.
Key Takeaways:- Liberal locus in public wrongs, but prove public benefit.- Cite breaches clearly to survive threshold challenges.- Analogize to trust suits for persuasive arguments.
References: GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA VS BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS (DEAD) BY LR RAM NIWAS - Supreme CourtASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST - Supreme CourtR. Venugopala Naidu VS Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities - Supreme CourtAvadh Kishore Das VS Ram Gopal - Supreme CourtVidyodaya Trust VS Mohan Prasad R - Supreme CourtALL INDIA WOMEN''S CONFERENCES VS SARLA SHAHS - Supreme CourtKhasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore VS Vipin Dhanaitkar - Supreme CourtBishwanath VS Thakur Radha Ballabhji - Supreme CourtSwami Shankaranand (D) by LRs. VS Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand etc. - Supreme CourtBhupinder Singh VS Joginder Singh(d) By Lrs. - Supreme CourtMahalaxmi Educational Trust, M/s. Cambridge Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Chennai VS R. V. Narasimha Rao - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2492P.BALASUBRAMANIAN vs VICTORIA @ BALASUNDARI AMMAL - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25114Ashok Kumar VS State of Haryana - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 65Shobhakant Kumar @ Poddar, Son Of Late Ganesh Poddar VS Rani Devi, Wife of Shobhakant Kumar @ Poddar Aforesaid - 2019 Supreme(Pat) 92Zulfikar Hussian VS Zainab Begum - 2018 Supreme(AP) 428Pushpa Dharwal VS State Of M. P. - 2015 Supreme(MP) 1246Surya VS Pakkirisa - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 1153.
Stay informed, act responsibly, and approach courts with clean hands for justice to prevail.
#LocusStandi #PIL #PMLA
The court also noted that all issues relating to the applicability of Section 92 were left open to be decided at trial. ... Trustee - Trust Property - Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 - Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure ... , 1908 - [Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, Section 7; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92] ... In the said order, this Hon’ble Court....
It clarified that Section 92 of the CPC did not apply, as the suit did not seek relief covered under that section. ... Locus Standi - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100, Section 92; Transfer of Property ... It interpreted Section 92 of the CPC, concluding that the suit did not fall under its provisions, and emphasized that the plaintiffs ... Locus#H....
The 1st petitioner-s Trust is not a public charitable Trust, or a religious Trust and hence, the 1st respondent has no locus standi to file this suit under Sec. 92 C.P.C. ... The ousted trustee is attempting to disturb the tempo of the Trust by filing the suit without making any ground or citing any reason for seeking a scheme. The 1st petitioner is not a public #HL_STA....
In fact, the first additional issue is ‘whether the person who represented as Secretary and Trustee on behalf of the plaintiff’s Trust Board has locus standi to file the suit’. In this regard, the contention of the petitioner/defendant is that there is no Trust Board existing. ... The defendant is registered society and plaintiff is trust and thereby the reason assigne....
But Section 92 C.P.C., is meant for public trust alone. Generally the Court is accepted as the guardian of the Public Charitable Trust / Institution. ... sub-section 9 of the Act. ... (2) Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to seek the removal of the defendant from functioning as Secretary of the society? ... Judge, granting per....
But Section 92 C.P.C., is meant for public trust alone. Generally the Court is accepted as the guardian of the Public Charitable Trust / Institution. ... sub-section 9 of the Act. ... defendant was owned by the Society, then the suit under Section 92 C.P.C., is not maintainable. ... granting permission under Section....
Only the seventh defendant has filed this petition for revocation of the leave. The seventh defendant was not a Trustee, she was only a subsequent purchaser of the Trust property and she has no locus standi to file the petition. ... and they have no locus standi to file the suit and they are not beneficiaries of the alleged Trust at any point of time. ....
Abdul Hamid Omar CJ Malaya (as His Lordship then was) stated: "Locus standi" is generally understood to mean the right of a party to appear and be heard by a tribunal. ... A right of appearance in a Court of justice, or before a legislative body, on a given question". Along the same lines Collins English Dictionary (online edition) defines "locus standi" as "the right o....
Therefore, the Court below rightly concluded that the suit trust is a private trust and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the transaction between the private trust. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not at all maintainable as contemplated under Section 92 of CPC. ... He further submitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to permit the suit eit....
Therefore, the plaint averments prima facie shows that ever since removal in 1994, the second plaintiff has no locus standi or right to claim, to represent the temple. ... The learned Senior Counsel thus contended that even if it is assumed that the plaint is not for any reliefs falling under Section 92 of CPC, the suit is liable to be rejected on the ground that the plaintiff No.2 has no locus....
Even otherwise, it is clearly discernible that the impugned permits were granted merely in compliance of the Government decision, which is found to have been taken without any lawful authority, thus, the Court will not remain as a mute spectator in such a scenario. Although, learned counsel for the respondents tried to vehemently oppose the writ petitions on the point of locus standi, but since fundamental rights of the petitioners to carry on business are found to have been violated....
5 and 6 have locus standi to oppose the application? Whether the applicant is duly and legally adopted son of the deceased father (Late Ganesh Poddar)?
Thereby the revisions are maintainable and the contention questioning their locus is unsustainable and rejected. Thus the revision petitioner as defendant to the suit and respondent to the 2 petitions got statutory right to oppose by filing counter and also right to maintain revisions and the revision respondents/plaintiffs have no locus to question their locus standi. Once remedy is available even from the saying by revision respondents/plaintiffs of Section 83(9) of the Act....
In case of corruption and criminal breach of trust any member of the society has locus standi to resist withdrawal. The complainant or any other person has locus standi to oppose withdrawal of a case involving offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, etc.
The point for consideration before the Trial Court was whether the plaintiffs in both the suits are having locus standi to invoke Section 92 of CPC for filing a suit.
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
