Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the management of an ancient public temple of Balaji at Deolgaon Raja in Buldana District. The temple was an endowment for the public founded by the ancestors of the Raja, and the Raja family held hereditary management rights while pujaris held hereditary office subject to control. Over decades, multiple schemes were framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to regulate administration. In 1953, due to renewed trouble, the District Judge appointed a commissioner to investigate the working of the temple and later revised the 1935 scheme by order dated April 12, 1954. The pujaris challenged this in revision before the Nagpur High Court, which held that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to modify the scheme affecting pujaris who were not parties to the 1904 suit and that modification required a separate suit under Section 92. The appellant Raja appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a court can amend a scheme framed under Section 92 when the scheme itself reserves power to modify, and whether non-parties to the original suit can be bound by such modification. The appellant argued that modification for administration purposes was permissible by application under the scheme clause, while the respondents contended that it was ultra vires and required a separate suit. The Court analyzed the conflict among High Courts; approved the Bombay, Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna line of authorities and disapproved the Madras view in Veeraraghavachariar v. The Advocate-General of Madras. The Court held that a suit under Section 92 is representative and binds all interested in the trust, including non-parties, and that the court may include a clause for modification for purposes of administration. Such modification can be made by application without a separate suit, but it cannot affect the private rights of pujaris. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the District Judge's order revising the scheme was upheld subject to the limitation that the modification was for administration only and did not affect private rights.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Scheme Modification - Court's Power to Amend Scheme - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 - In a suit under Section 92 for settlement of a scheme, the court may reserve power to modify the scheme from time to time for purposes of administration; such modification can be made by application under the relevant clause of the scheme without filing a separate suit under Section 92. Held that this procedure does not violate Section 92 as the suit is analogous to an administration suit. B) Civil Procedure - Representative Suit - Binding Effect on Non-Parties - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 - A suit under Section 92 is a representative suit and binds not only the parties to the suit but all persons interested in the trust, including pujaris who were not parties to the original suit. Held that non-party status does not take away the court's jurisdiction to modify the scheme if the modification concerns administration of the trust and does not affect private rights of the pujaris. C) Civil Procedure - Modification of Scheme - Limits on Modification - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 - The power to modify a scheme under a reserved clause is limited to matters of administration; modifications affecting private rights of individuals, such as hereditary rights of pujaris, cannot be made without a separate suit under Section 92. Held that the District Judge's order revising the scheme was valid insofar as it related to administration and did not affect private rights. D) Precedent - Conflicting High Court Views - Resolution of Conflict - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92 - The Bombay, Allahabad, Calcutta, Patna and later Bombay views permitting modification by application were approved; the Madras view in Veeraraghavachariar v. The Advocate-General of Madras treating reservation of power to modify as ultra vires was disapproved. Held that the former line of cases correctly stated the law.
Issue of Consideration
How far it is open to a court to amend a scheme once framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, where a power to amend the scheme is reserved in the scheme itself, and whether pujaris who were not parties to the original suit can be bound by such modification.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and upheld the District Judge's order dated April 12, 1954, revising the scheme, subject to the condition that the modification was for the purpose of administration of the trust and did not affect the private rights of the pujaris. The Court held that a suit under Section 92 CPC is representative and binds all interested in the trust, and that modification of a scheme for administration purposes can be made by application under a reserved clause without a separate suit.
Law Points
- Court may reserve power to modify scheme in a suit under Section 92 CPC
- modification for administration can be made by application without separate suit
- suit under Section 92 is representative and binds all interested in trust
- modification cannot affect private rights of non-parties
