- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Narayana Pillai Gopala Pillai v. Smt. Jyothi Prakashini Devi And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants, petitioners 1 and 2 in Original Petition (Trust) 116 of 1984 before the District Court, Trivandrum, sought permission under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) to institute a suit. The suit aimed to direct the removal of respondents 2 to 5 from the management of the Asramam temple and its properties, and to frame a scheme for their management. The District Court allowed the petition initially. Respondents 2 to 4 challenged this decision by filing C.R.P 871 of 1986 in this Court, which set aside the District Court’s order and remitted the matter back for reconsideration, noting the absence of a finding on whether the petitioners had any interest in the trust. Following this, the District Judge passed the impugned order holding that the second petitioner failed to prove his interest in the Swayam Prakash Asramam, Kulathoor, a public trust, and therefore the first petitioner alone could not maintain the petition under Section 92 C.P.C.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the second petitioner (P.W 1) has established any real, substantive, and existing interest in the Asramam public trust so as to invoke the provisions of Section 92 of the C.P.C.
- Whether mere residence near the Asramam and worship in its temple constitute sufficient interest in the trust to maintain a suit under Section 92.
- The scope and application of Section 92 C.P.C regarding the requisite interest of plaintiffs in suits concerning public trusts.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- P.W 1’s evidence demonstrates that he is a worshipper in the temple and a resident of the nearby area.
- This evidence, according to the appellants, reveals his interest in the trust sufficient to maintain the petition under Section 92.
Respondents' Arguments
- The evidence at best shows that P.W 1 worships in the temple but does not establish any interest in the Asramam trust itself.
- Since the temple is only an adjunct of the Asramam, mere worship does not confer any interest in the public trust.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Swami Paramatmanand Sarswati v. Ramji Trtpathi (1974 S.C.W.R 429) | Only allegations in the plaint are initially examined to determine if the suit falls within Section 92; if after evidence the breach of trust is not established, the suit must be dismissed. | The Court applied this principle to emphasize that the initial scrutiny is on the plaint’s allegations, but evidence must substantiate the interest and breach of trust. |
| Vaidyanatha Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar (A.I.R 1924 P.C 221) | The bare possibility of worship or remote interest does not confer interest in a trust under Section 92; to avoid frivolous suits interfering with public trusts. | The Court relied on this to hold that mere worship or residence near the temple does not amount to a sufficient interest in the public trust. |
| T.R Ramachandra Iyer v. P.A Parameswara Munbu (AIR 1919 Mad 384) | Expressed the view that remote or speculative interest is insufficient to maintain a suit under Section 92. | Approved by the Privy Council and cited to reinforce the need for a real and substantive interest. |
| Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh (AIR 1967 S.C 1415) | Confirmed the principle that mere remote interest or visitation does not constitute interest under Section 92. | The Supreme Court’s agreement supported the Court’s application of the principle to the facts. |
| P. Sivagurunatha Pillai v. P. Mani Pillai (A.I.R 1984 Madras 328) | Interest to file suit for framing a scheme must be real, substantive, and existing; mere residence or hereditary claims are insufficient. | The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that the second petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite interest. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed whether the second petitioner (P.W 1) had a real, substantive, and existing interest in the Asramam public trust to maintain a suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. It noted that historically, the requirement for a direct interest was relaxed by amendment, but the interest must still be more than remote or contingent. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 92: to prevent frivolous suits aimed at harassing trustees of public charitable or religious trusts.
The Court examined the evidence of P.W 1, who testified to being a worshipper and resident near the temple. However, the Court found this insufficient to establish an interest in the trust itself, as the temple is only an adjunct of the Asramam trust. The Court drew on authoritative precedents, including decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, which uniformly hold that mere worship or residence does not confer the necessary interest to sue under Section 92.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the District Judge’s conclusion that the second petitioner failed to establish the requisite interest in the public trust, and thus the petition could not be maintained by the first petitioner alone.
Holding and Implications
The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (C.M.A) with no order as to costs.
The direct effect of this decision is that the petition under Section 92 of the C.P.C cannot be maintained by a petitioner who fails to establish a real, substantive, and existing interest in the public trust. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that mere worship or proximity to a temple does not confer standing to sue in matters concerning public trusts. No new precedent was set beyond affirming established legal standards on interest under Section 92.
1. Appellants are petitioners 1 and 2 in O.P (Trust) 116 of 1984 of the District Court, Trivandrum. The petition was filed for permission to institute a suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C for directing the removal of respondents 2 to 5 from the management of the plaint schedule Asramam temple and properties, for framing at scheme for the management of the said items and for its management. The petition was allowed by the Court. Respondents 2 to 4 filed C.R.P 871 of 1986 before this Court. The order, of the District Court was set aside and it was remitted to that Court as there was no finding whether the two petitioners have any interest in the trust. It is thereafter that the impugned order was passed by the District Judge. The District Judge held that the second petitioner has failed to prove his interest in the Swayam Prakash Asramam, Kulathoor which is a public trust and hence the first petitioner alone cannot maintain the petition under Section 92 C.P.C
2. It is only the allegations in the plaint that should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92. Of course position would be different when evidence is taken. In Swami Paramatmanand Sarswati v. Ramji Trtpathi (1974 S.C.W.R 429) the Supreme Court held that only the allegations in the plaint that should be looked into in the first Instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 and if after evidence is taken and if it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in facts or reason but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the section, then a suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed.
3. The question that arises for consideration as to whether P.W 1 has established any interest in the Asramam so as to invoke the aid of Section 92 of the C.P.C
4. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that the evidence of P.W 1 would show that he is worshipper in the temple, that he is a resident in the nearby area and that the evidence unfolds his interest in the trust. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that his evidence at best Would only show that he worships in the temple and it cannot be said that he has any interest in the Asramam and as the temple is only an adjunct of the Asramam it is difficult to hold that he has any interest in the public trust.
5. Two or more persons having interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court can institute a suit for reliefs provided under Section 92. In a suit of the description coming under Section 92 the plaintiff must have a direct interest in the trust under the English Law. That was the position in India in the Code of 1877. Section 539 of the Code of 1882 also required the plaintiff in such a suit to have a direct interest in the trust. Later, the requirement of the existence of a direct interest was considered to be not expedient in so far as India was concerned. Hence Section 44 of the C.P.C (Amendment Act 1888) omitted the word ‘direct’ and the amendment widened the class of persons entitled to institute a suit under Section 92. Though the word ‘direct’ was omitted and now the petitioner/plaintiff has only to satisfy that he has interest in the property in the trust, it does not mean that the person having some remote interest can institute a suit. Even after amendment, the interest contemplated under Section 92 must be a real, substantive and an existing interest in the particular trust. In other words, the interest must be shown to be real, substantive and an existing interest in a particular trust Mere remote interest or a contingent interest would not be sufficient. At the same time, it is not necessary for petitioner/plaintiff to establish his interest in every bit of property stated to be comprised in the bust. The question whether a person has a real, substantive and existing interest in the particular trust so as to maintain an action under Section 92 has to be determined factually on acceptable evidence and also with reference to the trust in relation to which the suit is instituted.
6. Mere residence in the locality and worship in the temple which is the adjunct of the trust will not constitute any interest in the trust under Section 92. The bare possibility that a Hindu visits a particular temple does not give him an interest in the trust. The object of Section 92 is to prevent people from interfering with administration of public trusts of a charitable or religious nature by instituting frivolous suits with a view to cause sheer harassment or annoyance to the trustees. In Vaidyanatha Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar (A.I.R 1924 P.C 221) the Privy Council approved the opinion expressed by Sir John Wallis C.J in T.R Ramachandra Iyer v. P.A Parameswara Munbu (AIR 1919 Mad 384) and observed thus:
“They agree with Sir John Wallis that the bare possibility, however remote, that a Hindu might desire to resort to a particular temple gives him an interest in the trust appears to defeat the object with which the Legislature inserted these words in the section. That object was to prevent people interfering by virtue of this section in the administration of charitable trusts merely in the interests of others and without any real interests of their own.”
7. The Supreme Court in Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh (AIR 1967 S.C 1415) agreed with the view expressed by the Privy Council. In P. Sivagurunatha Pillai v. P. Mani Pillai (A.I.R 1984 Madras 328) the Madras High Court held as follows:
“The interest for filing a suit for framing of a scheme in respect of a choultry should be real, substantive and an existing interest though it need not be a direct one. The mere residence of the plaintiff in the locality where the choultry is situate is not enough. Even the fact that the plaintiff might have belonged to the family entitled to the hereditary trusteeship of the temple would not clothe the plaintiff with the interest of such a nature as to enable him to maintain a suit under S. 92.”
8. The learned District Judge held that the evidence of the second petitioner (P.W 1) has only made out that he has interest in worshipping in the temple and that he has not established that he has any interest in the public trust which is mainly the Asramam and so it cannot be said that he is a person interested in the public trust. P.W 1 deposed that he is a resident very near the Asramam, that he is a worshipper in the temple in the Asramam and that he is also interested in the proper functioning of the Asramam. As the temple is only an adjunct of the Asramam as the second petitioner contines his claim only as a worshipper in the temple, there is hardly any evidence to hold that he is interested in the affairs of the Asramam. As his evidence does not disclose that he is interested in the affairs of the Asramam, the Court below was justified in passing the impugned order.
9. There is no merit in the C.M.A The C.M.A is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Alert