Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr vs Ramji Tripathi & Anr on 21 August, 1974
nand Saraswati and another v. Ramji Tripathi and
another(3) has reiterated the same view in paragraph 10 at
page 699 wherein it has been further added "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."
Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji vs Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai ... on 7 March, 1952
In Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Patel Ishwarlalbhai
Narsibhai and others(1) it was pointed out at page 517 by
Mukherjea, J, as he then was, speaking for the Court "A suit
under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, is a suit of a
special nature which presupposes the existence of a public
trust of a religious or charitable character. Such suit can
proceed only on the allegation that there is a breach of
such trust or that directions from the court are necessary
for the administration thereof, and it must pray for one or
other of the reliefs that are specifically mentioned in the
section. It is only when these conditions are fulfilled
that the suit has got to be brought in conformity with the
provision of section 92, Civil Procedure Code.
The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961
Harendra Nath Bhattacharya & Ors vs Kaliram Das--Dead By L. Rs on 22 November, 1971
In the case of
Harendra Nath Bhattacharya & Ors. v. Kalimram Das Dead by
L.Rs. (supra), Grover, J delivering the judgment of this
Court referred to the analysis made by the High Court as to
the reliefs claimed in the plaint of that suit. In the main
there were 4 reliefs as enumerated at pages 498 and 499 of
the report. Reliefs (1) (2) and (4 ) were clearly outside
the scope of section 92 of the Code. Learned counsel for
the respondents submitted that relief no. 3 which was very
much akin to the relief in the present suit was also held to
be a relief not covered by any of the clauses of sub-section
(1) of section 92 of the Code. In our opinion the
contention is not sound and cannot be accepted. The third
relief in that case as analysed by the Court was in the
following terms
"(3)" For a declaration that the plaintiffs as
Bhakats of the Satrawas entitled to possess
their own Basti and paddy landsand that
they had a right to access to the use of the
Satra for various religious purposes."
Abdur Rahim vs Syed Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali Shah on 2 December, 1927
As was
observed by the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim V. Barkat
Ali(2), a suit for a declaration that certain property
appertains to a religious trust may lie under the general
law but is outside the scope of section 92, Civil Procedure
Code." In a very recent decision, this Court speaking
through one of us (Mathew, J) in the case of Swami
Paramatma.
1