Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit seeking removal of trustees appointed under a court-settled scheme and substitution of a fresh management, or in effect setting aside that scheme, could be maintained otherwise than by invoking the machinery of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: The relief claimed, though framed as a declaration of mahantship and a right to manage the temple, in substance sought to displace or override a valid scheme already settled by a court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A scheme framed under that provision binds all persons concerned, and any variation, supersession, or replacement of the trustees appointed under it must be sought in the court which sanctioned the scheme and by proceedings under the same statutory machinery. A separate suit in another court, advancing rights hostile to the scheme, could not be used to defeat or circumvent it.
Conclusion: The suit was barred in substance because the claimed relief was inconsistent with and hostile to the existing scheme; the appellants could not obtain the relief sought in this proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: A valid scheme settled by a court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is binding until modified or displaced by the proper statutory procedure before the court that framed it, and cannot be impeached or overridden by a fresh suit in another court.