Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
R.M. Narayana Chettiar And Another vs N. Lakshmanan Chetfiar And Others on 11 October, 1990
In R.M.Narayana Chettiar Vs. N.Lakshmana
Chettiar reported in 1991 AIR 221, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
9/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1048 of 2021
answering the question, as to whether it is obligatory on the Court, before
granting leave to institute a suit as required under section 92 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, to give an opportunity to the respondents to
show cause against the grant of such leave, and whether leave granted
without such opportunity having been given is void.
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr vs Ramji Tripathi & Anr on 21 August, 1974
31. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendants,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati's case
has specifically held that it is only the allegations in the plaint that should
17/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.1048 of 2021
be looked into in the first instance. Suppose, if the defendant fails to raise
such an issue at an initial stage, even after recording of evidence, he is
certainly entitled to raise the maintainability of the suit and in that
situation, if the Court found that the breach of trust alleged has not been
made out or that the prayer for direction is vague and is not based on any
solid foundation, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Vidyodaya Trust vs Mohan Prasad R & Ors on 27 February, 2008
To counter the same, the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied on the judgment of
Vidyodaya Trust's case above referred, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court after referring to the Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati's case has
observed that “ But, if after evidence is taken, it is found that the breach
of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of
the court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in fact or
reason but is made only with a view to bringing the suit under the
section, then suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be
dismissed.
Sugra Bibi vs Hazi Kummu Mia on 13 December, 1968
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugra Bibi Vs. Hazi Kummu
Mia reported AIR 1969 SC 884, has held that the mere fact that the suit
relates to public trust of religious or charitable nature and the reliefs
claimed fall within some of the clauses of sub-Section (1) of Section 92
would not by itself attract the operation of the Section, unless the suit is
of a representative character instituted in the interest of the public and
not merely for vindication or the individual or personal rights of the
plaintiffs.
1