Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams ... vs Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga And Ors. on 19 February, 1943

Operation Asha vs Shelly Batra on 5 August, 2025

“10. A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public Trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the court for Page No. 150 of 167 proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N. Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M. Govinda Chetty [AIR 1938 Mad 92 : 176 IC 26 : 1937 MWN 849] , Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga [AIR 1943 Mad 466 : (1943) 56 LW 260] , Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia [AIR 1969 SC 884 : (1969) 3 SCR 83 : (1969) 2 SCJ 365] and Mulla: Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol. 1, p. 400). A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 the court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section 92.
Supreme Court of India Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Gagan Gandhi & Anr. vs . The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 24 December, 2022

"A suit under s. 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated cr that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the Court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail, and, oven if all the other ingredients of a suit under s. 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of S. 92 see Shamukhan v. Govinda (1) Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Krishnayya(2).
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust vs Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta

Narasigna(1),. In that case, a suit was instituted by a trustee of a public, religious trust against a co-trustee for accounts and the Full Bench decided that it did not come within s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the claim being to enforce a purely personal right of the plaintiff as a trustee against his co- trustees. The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in The Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams Committee v. Udiayar Krishnayya http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Shanbhagal(2);. In this case the general trustees of a public temple filed a suit against the trustees for the recovery of moneys which the latter had collected on behalf of the former praying for a decree directing accounts and inquiries. It was held that the right to collect moneys was entirely independent of s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and no sanction of the Advocate- General was necessary for the institution of the suit. Leach C. J. who delivered the judgment of the Court observed as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Basudev Moharan vs Ogadhu Ponda on 18 October, 1949

21. The latest of them is the case of Tirumalai Tirupati Dewasthanams Committee v. Krishnayya Shabhaga, A. I. R. (30) 1943 Mad. 466 : (I. L. R. (1943) Mad. 619 F. B. ). The facts of that case were that the trustee of a certain temple having had, qua trustees, the right of recovering from the trustees of another temple moneys which the latter had collected, on behalf of the former temple, filed a suit against the latter to compel them to render account of receipts and to deliver what was found due. They had not clothed themselves with the sanction of the Advocate-General. The relief that they prayed for in the suit was one of those enumerated in Section 92 of the Code and was in relation to a trust fund. The question arose if Section 92 of the Code was applicable.
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bright Joseph vs M/S.Young Men Christian Association ... on 8 October, 2021

"10. A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public Trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N.Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M.Govinda Chetty [AIR 1938 Mad 92 : 176 IC 26 : 1937 MWN 849] , Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga [AIR 1943 Mad 466 : (1943) 56 LW 260] , Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia [AIR 1969 SC 884 : (1969) 3 SCR 83 : (1969) 2 SCJ 365] and Mulla: Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol. 1, p. 400). A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section but only the suits Page No.29/49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Appln.No.1844 of 2021 in C.S.Diary.No.36935 of 2021 which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 the court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Srimad Ujjaini Saddharma vs Sri S S Patil on 13 April, 2023

was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated cir that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the Court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail, and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under s. 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of S. 92 (see Shamukhan v. Govinda (1) Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Krishnayya(2).
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kalinga Institute Of Mining ... vs Dr. Bipin Bihari Behera And Others ... ... on 25 May, 2023

"10. ...... It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N. Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M. Govinda Chetty [AIR 1938 Mad 92 : 176 IC 26 : 1937 MWN 849] , Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga [AIR 1943 Mad 466 : (1943) 56 LW 260] , Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia [AIR 1969 SC 884 : (1969) 3 SCR 83 : (1969) 2 SCJ 365] and Mulla: Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol.
Orissa High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - K R Mohapatra - Full Document

Kabul Singh And Anr. vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 30 July, 1985

".......and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N. Shanmukham Chetty v. M. Govinda Chetty, AIR 1938 Mad 92; Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga, AIR 1943 Mad 466 (FB); Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia; AIR 1969 SC 884 and Mulla : Civil Procedure Code (13th Edn). Vol. 1, P. 400). A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section, but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section 92."
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lt. Gen. C.K. Kapur (Retd.) And Ors. vs Guruji Ka Ashram And Ors. on 21 November, 2007

10. A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public Trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92 (see N. Shanmukham Chetty v. V.M. Govinda Chetty 1 , Tirumalai Devasthanams v. Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga 2 , Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia 3 and Mulla: Civil Procedure Code (13th edn.) Vol. 1, p. 400). A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within Section 92 the court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religious nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section 92.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - A Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next