Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sanjay Vishwasrao Chikte and others, filed a suit before the District Judge, Akola, seeking a mandatory injunction directing the respondents (defendants) to vest the suit property in a proposed trust by removing their names from revenue records and to maintain the property in the name of the trust. They also sought proper administration of the suit property. The appellants filed an application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for leave to file the suit. The District Judge-2, Akola, rejected the application vide order dated 27/7/2015 in M.J.C. No. 138/2013, holding that the suit did not fall within the ambit of Section 92 CPC. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the primary relief sought in the suit was a mandatory injunction to vest the property in the trust, which essentially sought enforcement of individual rights of the plaintiffs rather than protection of a public trust. The court noted that the suit did not seek any relief for the administration of a public trust or for any direction to the trustees, but rather sought to establish that the property belonged to the trust and that the defendants were holding it in their individual capacity. The court held that such a suit is not maintainable under Section 92 CPC, as the provision is intended for cases where there is a breach of trust or where directions are needed for the administration of a trust. The court further observed that the proper remedy for the appellants would be to file a suit for declaration and possession, if they claim that the property belongs to the trust. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the leave to sue.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Section 92 CPC - Leave to Sue - Public Trust - The suit seeking mandatory injunction to vest property in trust and for proper administration does not fall within the scope of Section 92 CPC as it primarily seeks enforcement of individual rights of the plaintiffs rather than protection of public trust. The trial court's rejection of leave was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Trust Law - Vesting of Property - Individual Rights - Where the plaintiffs claim that property belongs to a trust but the defendants hold it in individual capacity, the remedy lies in a suit for declaration and possession, not under Section 92 CPC. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the appellants seeking mandatory injunction to vest suit property in the trust and for proper administration falls within the ambit of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to file such suit.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order of the District Judge-2, Akola dated 27/7/2015 rejecting the application for leave under Section 92 CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 92 CPC
- Leave to sue
- Public trust
- Charitable trust
- Mandatory injunction
- Vesting of property
- Individual rights vs. Trust rights
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (06) 154
Appeal Against Order No. 2/2016
Smt. Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi
Shri N.R. Tekade for appellants, Shri A.R. Deshpande for respondent nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 9(i) to 9(iii)
Sanjay Vishwasrao Chikte, Raju Pralhad Amle, Devanand Kashiram Mhasal, Yogesh Manohar Amle
Purushottam Pundlik Tayade, Yogesh Purushottam Tayade, Prashant Purushottam Tayade, Vishnu Pundlik Tayade (deleted), Santosh Vishnu Tayade, Anil Vishnu Tayade, Haridas Ramkrushna Tayade, Sachin Haridas Tayade, Shrikrishna Ganpat Tayade, Vasanta Shrikrishna Tayade, Shaligram Shrikrishna Tayade, Ramdas Shrikrishna Tayade, Dharmal Sansthan Trust, Thite Tahsildar, Wadekar (Patwari), State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against rejection of application for leave to file suit under Section 92 CPC for proper administration of trust property.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought leave to file suit for mandatory injunction directing respondents to vest suit property in trust and for proper administration.
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed that the suit property belongs to a trust but respondents were holding it in individual capacity, and sought court intervention for vesting and administration.
Previous Decisions
District Judge-2, Akola rejected the application for leave under Section 92 CPC vide order dated 27/7/2015 in M.J.C. No. 138/2013.
Issues
Whether the suit for mandatory injunction to vest property in trust and for proper administration falls within the scope of Section 92 CPC.
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to file suit under Section 92 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was for proper administration of trust property and thus maintainable under Section 92 CPC.
Respondents contended that the suit sought enforcement of individual rights and not protection of public trust, hence not covered by Section 92 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi
A suit seeking mandatory injunction to vest property in a trust and for proper administration, where the primary relief is to enforce individual rights of the plaintiffs rather than to protect a public trust, does not fall within the ambit of Section 92 CPC. The provision is intended for cases involving breach of trust or directions for administration of a public trust, not for establishing title or possession of trust property.
Judgment Excerpts
The application filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for grant of leave to file suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected by District Judge-2, Akola vide his impugned order dated 27/7/2015 in M.J.C.No.138/2013.
The first relief which is claimed in the suit is of mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendant nos. 1 to 9 & 11 and 12 to vest the suit property in the trust by removing their names in the revenue record, in their individual capacity and to further maintain the same in the name of trust by making necessary compliances with the office of the trust.
Procedural History
Appellants filed suit before trial court seeking mandatory injunction and administration of trust property. They filed application under Section 92 CPC for leave to sue. District Judge-2, Akola rejected the application on 27/7/2015. Appellants preferred the present appeal before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 21/6/2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 92
