Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction that is District Judge and not any other Court.

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Jayantri Prasad v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir, Pratapgarh Thru Ram Shiromani Pandey and 2 others

What was the Background of Jayantri Prasad v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir, Pratapgarh Thru Ram Shiromani Pandey and 2 others Case?

• It is the case of the plaintiff that Shri Ram Laksham Janikiji Virajman’ Temple had been constructed by their donations.
• The plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 91 and Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction where the petitioners prayed for a direction for constituting an eleven member committee and for appointing him as Manager for managing Ram Janki Mandir.
• The Trial Court held that the present suit does to fall within the purview of Section 92 of CPC as:
  • The plaintiffs have not filed any trust deed and there is no pleading as to who is the trust or manager of the trust.
  • No bye-laws/Rules of the trust have been brought on record.
  • There is no pleading regarding any public charities being administered by the property in dispute.
  • Therefore, the Civil Judge concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Section 91 and Section 92 CPC and dismissed the suit as not maintainable at the admission stage.
• Thus, petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) challenging the above order passed by the Learned Civil Judge.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• There are two issues that the Court considered in this case:
  • Whether a suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in this case?
  • Whether the suit can be admitted by the Civil Judge?
• With Respect to Issue (i):
  • Section 92 of CPC relates to public charities.
  • The Court held that the phrase ‘Religious Endowments’ is not defined in the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (the Act).
  • It was observed that Section 14, 15 and 18 of the Act are relevant to the present dispute.
  • From the combined reading of Section 92 CPC and the other provisions the Court held that it is manifestly clear that a suit under Section 92 of CPC can be filed in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature also.
  • Thus, the Court held that the suit cannot be refused only because of the absence of a trust deed.
  • Thus, the High Court held that the Learned Trial Court has committed a patent illegality in dismissing the suit at the admission stage for reasons that the plaintiff has not filed any trust deed and the plaint does not disclose the identity of the trustees or the Manager.
• With Respect to Issue (ii):
  • Section 92 of CPC and Section 2 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 (REA) provide that the suit under this provision can be filed “in the Principal Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in this behalf by the State Government.”
  • The Court went on to analyze whether a “Civil Judge” would constitute the Principal Court of original jurisdiction.
  • The Court analysed the following provisions:
    • Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act provides that the “District Judge” shall mean the Judge of a Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction but shall not include a High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extraordinary original civil jurisdiction.
    • Section 2 (4) of CPC defines the term ‘district’.
    • Section 3 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 provides for classes of Courts.
  • The Court after analyzing the provisions and the case laws held that the Court of the District Judge is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
  • Therefore, the Court of District Judge is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
• Thus, the Court held that the suit under Section 92 of CPC and Section 2 of REA in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of District Judge.
• Therefore, the Court held that the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC or under the provisions of REA.

What is Section 92 of CPC?

About:

• Section 92 of CPC provides for procedure for filing a civil suit by a Charitable trust against a third party.
• This Section protects the public’s interests in public trusts and charities.

Constituents of Section 92 (1):

• Conditions When the Suit can be Filed:
  • In case of alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or
  • Where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of trust.
• The Persons by Whom Suit May be Instituted:
  • The Advocate General
  • Or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court
• The Suit can be Filed in:
  • The principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or
  • Any other Court empowered in this behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree
• Purposes for which Suit can be Filed:
  • Removing any trustee
  • Appointing a new trustee
  • Vesting any property in a trustee
  • directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property
  • directing accounts and inquiries
  • declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust
  • authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged
  • settling a scheme
  • granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

Constituents of Section 92 (2):

• Section 92 (2) of CPC provides that any suit of the form referred to under Section 92 (1) of CPC can only be instituted in the manner prescribed therein.
  • Section 92 (1) does not apply in following cases:
    • In cases provided under The Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or
    • By any corresponding law in force in the territories which immediately before 1st November 1956 were comprised in Part B states.

Constituents of Section 92 (3):

• Section 92 (3) of CPC provides for the alteration of original purposes of a trust (constructive or express) created for public purposes.
  • It provides that the Court can allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cypress
  • The above can happen in following circumstances:
    • where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part,
      • have been, as far as may be, fulfilled;
      • cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust
    • where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust;
    • where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes
    • where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes
    • where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down:
      • been adequately provided for by other means
      • ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community
      • ceased to be, in law, charitable,
      • ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust

What are the Landmark Judgments on Section 92 of CPC?

• Bishwanath v. Sri Tahkur Radha Ballabhji (1967)
  • The Court held that in order to invoke Section 92 of CPC three requirements must be met:
    • Firstly, the trust was established for charitable or public purposes
    • Secondly, there was a breach of trust
    • Lastly, a court order was required to be followed in the administration of such a trust.
• Janki Prasad v. Kuber Singh (1963)
  • The mere absence of a written document or mere absence of the entries is not a conclusive proof of the non-existence of a trust
  • A valid trust may be created not only by means of a written document but also orally but what is required in the case of oral trust is that the property must have been treated to be an endowed property and it must have been used towards charitable and religious purposes for which the trust was created.