Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.44 seconds)Charan Singh And Anr vs Darshan Singh And Ors on 17 December, 1974
10. It is well settled that it is only the allegation in the plaint that should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit fails within the ambit of Section 92 of the Civil P.C. vide Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Trinathi, (1974) 2 SCC 695 : (AIR 1974 SC 2141); Charan Singh v. Darshan Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 298 : (AIR 1975 SC 371). A suit under Section 92, C.P.C. is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of religious or charitable nature. The court is required to ascertain from the plaint the dominant purpose of the suit. If on an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint, it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was the vindication of individual or personal rights of third persons or the plaintiffs themselves, an action under this provision does not lie.
N. Shanmukham Chetty vs M. Govinda Chetty And Ors. on 22 July, 1937
".......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."
The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams ... vs Udiavar Krishnayya Shanbhaga And Ors. on 19 February, 1943
".......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."
Sugra Bibi vs Hazi Kummu Mia on 13 December, 1968
".......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."
Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Bmadan ... on 19 March, 1985
13. The admitted case of the parties is that the Maharaja of Tehri Garhwal created religious endowment The founder did not dispose of the Shebaiti right in the endowment brought into existence by him. The Shebait-ship itself is in the nature of immovable property. This was retained by the Maharaja in himself and it was given protection also in the Merger Agreement (See Shambhu Charan Shukla v. Shri Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905).
Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr vs Ramji Tripathi & Anr on 21 August, 1974
In Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati, (AIR 1974 SC 2141) (supra) also notice was taken of the fact that, there was no allegation in" the plaint questioning or casting doubt on the validity of the installation of K as the Head of the Math and there was also no allegation against him in respect of the management of the trust properties. The inference drawn was that these merely showed the strain of the draftsman to dress up the plaint with prayers to make it appear that the plaintiffs were the disinterested dominions of the right of the public and not the mere partisan advocates of the personal case of K. In case the Court were to find in the proceeding that the right to manage inheres in the Managing Committee claimed to have been elected in Oct. 1966, the real grievance focussed in the plaint would disappear and this suggests strongly the object underlying the institution of the suit.
Section 74 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1