Section 92 CPC is confined to specified trust reliefs, and a compromise decree in a non-representative suit may not bind the public.

A suit concerning a public religious endowment was not barred for want of Advocate General sanction because Section 92 CPC applies only where the suit claims one or more of the specific reliefs named in the provision; declarations and restraints outside that scope do not attract the bar. A compromise decree in an earlier proceeding also did not operate as res judicata, because a representative suit loses that character when strangers to the trust are added and reliefs beyond Section 92 are sought, and a compromise entered into by only some plaintiffs cannot bind non-consenting members of the public in those circumstances. The appeal succeeded and the plaintiffs' decree was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit concerning a public religious endowment, though not claiming the reliefs specified in Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was barred for want of the Advocate General's sanction. (ii) Whether the compromise decree in the earlier suit operated as res judicata against the present plaintiffs under Explanation 6 to Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether a suit concerning a public religious endowment, though not claiming the reliefs specified in Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was barred for want of the Advocate General's sanction.

Analysis: Section 92 applies only to suits that claim one or more of the reliefs specified in Sub-section (1). The words "further or other relief" are confined to reliefs of the same nature as those enumerated in the earlier clauses. The provision was not intended to enlarge the section so as to cover every suit relating to a public trust, nor to add relief against strangers to the trust. The suit in question sought declarations and restraints outside the scope of the specified reliefs.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable without the Advocate General's sanction, and Section 92 was no bar.

Issue (ii): Whether the compromise decree in the earlier suit operated as res judicata against the present plaintiffs under Explanation 6 to Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decree in a representative suit binds the persons represented only so far as the suit retains that representative character. After amendment, strangers to the trust were added as defendants and reliefs beyond Section 92 were claimed, so the suit ceased to be purely representative. The compromise was entered into by only some of the plaintiffs, and such a decree could not bind the rest of the public in the circumstances of the case. Explanation 6 to Section 11 therefore did not apply.

Conclusion: The compromise decree did not bar the present suit by res judicata.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the trial court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs was restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 92 is confined to suits claiming the specific reliefs enumerated in the section, and a compromise decree in a suit that has lost its representative character cannot bind non-consenting members of the public under Explanation 6 to Section 11.

---