Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit instituted in 1963 by the respondents (plaintiffs) against appellant No.1, the trustee of a Dharamsala Dera Baba Jaimal Singh in village Balsarai, Amritsar. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with the maintenance of the Guru Granth Sahib for religious recitals in the Darbar Sahib, and from obstructing the public's right to recite the Granth Sahib and hold religious congregations. The land had been dedicated to the Granth Sahib in 1897, and successive trustees managed the trust; the appellant was the last trustee at the relevant time. The plaintiffs alleged that the appellant was committing breach of trust by not using the Dera and Darbar Sahib for the dedicated purposes, and by asserting that access and worship depended on his discretion. The trial court dismissed the suit as not maintainable without the Advocate General's consent under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The first appellate court affirmed. On regular second appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the suit was hit by Section 92. However, on Letters Patent appeal, a Division Bench reversed, holding the suit was not barred by Section 92 and remitted the case for trial. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. Before the Supreme Court, two main legal issues arose: first, whether the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC for want of Advocate General's consent; second, whether the appeal abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs during the pendency of the second appeal. The appellants contended that the plaint allegations and reliefs fell within Section 92(1)(e), (g), and (h) because the suit related to administration of a public religious trust, and the injunction was necessary to enforce the trust's purpose. They also argued that the denial of trust by the defendant was itself a breach of trust, and that the suit should have abated if it was not representative. The respondents argued that the suit was merely for an injunction, not covered by the enumerated reliefs, and that clause (h) must be read ejusdem generis and could not encompass a simple injunction; they maintained the suit was based on denial of trust and thus outside Section 92, and that it was filed in a representative capacity so no abatement occurred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that the suit was filed in a representative capacity, so the death of one plaintiff did not abate the appeal, following Raja Anand Rao. On the Section 92 issue, the Court reaffirmed that maintainability depends on the allegations in the plaint, not the written statement. The plaint alleged breach of duty by the trustee and sought court's aid to compel due performance of his obligations. Even though the plaintiffs did not expressly claim the specific reliefs under Section 92(1)(a) to (g), the substance of the suit was to enforce the objects of the public trust and to restrain interference with public worship, which fell within the residual clause (h) as further or other relief ancillary to the administration of the trust. Consequently, the suit was a suit for a decree under Section 92 and required the Advocate General's consent; since such consent was absent, the suit was not maintainable. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suits Relating to Public Trusts - Section 92 CPC - Consent of Advocate General - Plaint Allegations Determine Applicability - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 - The Supreme Court held that a suit alleging breach of trust by a trustee and seeking court's aid to compel due performance of trust duties falls within the purview of Section 92(1) even if the plaint does not expressly claim any of the specific reliefs under clauses (a) to (g), because the prayer for injunction to restrain interference with public worship amounts to further or other relief under clause (h) read ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses. Since no Advocate General consent was obtained, the suit was not maintainable. Held appeal allowed (Paras [53C], [57A-B]). B) Civil Procedure - Representative Suit - Abatement - Death of Plaintiff - Suit in Representative Capacity Does Not Abate - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 read with Order 1 Rule 8 - The Court held that when a suit is filed in a representative capacity for the benefit of the public, the death of one of the plaintiffs during pendency does not cause abatement of the appeal. Followed Raja Anand Rao. Held no abatement (Paras [53C]).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit was barred under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of Advocate General's consent; whether the appeal abated on the death of one of the plaintiffs during pendency of the second appeal.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's Letters Patent Bench judgment, and held that the suit was barred under Section 92 CPC for want of Advocate General's consent and was not maintainable. The Court also held that the suit did not abate on the death of one plaintiff as it was filed in a representative capacity.
Law Points
- Section 92 CPC consent mandatory for suits alleging breach of public trust
- maintainability determined from plaint allegations
- representative suit does not abate on death of one plaintiff
- reliefs under Section 92(1)(h) construed ejusdem generis with preceding clauses
- Section 92 applies to administration of public charitable or religious trusts
