2023 (7) TMI 628 - HC - Indian Laws

Public charitable trust can sue third party without Section 92 CPC permission if not internal management

The Court determined that a public charitable trust did not require permission under Section 92 of CPC to file a suit against a third party if the suit ... Public charitable trust - leave of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for suits concerning public charities - scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as limited to administration and internal management of trusts - residuary relief under Clause (h) of Section 92 to be read with Clauses (a)-(g) - suits by a trust against third parties for protection or recovery of trust property not falling within Section 92Public charitable trust - leave of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for suits concerning public charities - suits by a trust against third parties for protection or recovery of trust property not falling within Section 92 - Whether a public charitable trust is required to obtain leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure before instituting a suit against a third party to protect or recover trust property. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined sub section (1) of Section 92 and its enumerated matters and held that Section 92 is directed to suits concerning alleged breach of trusts created for public purposes and to matters of administration and internal management of such trusts. The provision prescribes that leave of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (or other empowered court) must be obtained where the reliefs sought are those enumerated in sub section (1). A suit instituted by a trust in the ordinary course to preserve and protect its properties, or to claim reliefs such as injunctions, recovery, specific performance or declaration against third parties, concerns the operational functioning of the trust rather than the internal administration or management contemplated by Section 92. If Section 92 were given a wider ambit to include every suit by a trust against third parties, it would impede ordinary and necessary legal actions by public charitable trusts. Applying this interpretative approach to the facts, the Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that Section 92 did not apply to the suit in question and that leave under Section 92 was not a prerequisite to maintain the suit against third parties. [Paras 8, 9, 14, 15]A public charitable trust need not obtain leave under Section 92 to institute a suit against a third party for protection or recovery of trust property; such suits fall outside the scope of Section 92.Residuary relief under Clause (h) of Section 92 to be read with Clauses (a)-(g) - interpretation of Clause (h) as not creating independent subject matter - Whether Clause (h) of sub section (1) of Section 92 independently brings a suit for permanent injunction by a trust against a third party within the requirement of obtaining leave. - HELD THAT: - The Court construed Clause (h) as a residuary provision ancillary to clauses (a)-(g) and held that it has no independent existence to expand the scope of Section 92 to matters unrelated to the enumerated subjects. Clause (h) must be read in conjunction with Clauses (a)-(g), and therefore cannot be invoked to require leave for a bare injunction suit by a trust against a third party which does not concern the internal administration or management of the trust. Consequently, Clause (h) does not operate to make ordinary suits for injunction or property protection by a trust subject to the leave requirement under Section 92. [Paras 11, 12]Clause (h) is a residuary provision to be read with Clauses (a)-(g) and does not independently require leave for a trust's ordinary suit for permanent injunction against a third party.Final Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial Court's view that Section 92 does not apply to the suit filed by the public charitable trust against third parties for protection of its property and that Clause (h) does not independently expand Section 92 to cover such suits; no leave under Section 92 was required and there is no interference with the trial Court's order. Issues Involved:1. Requirement of permission under Section 92 of CPC for a Public Charitable Trust to file a suit against a third party.The judgment addressed the issue of whether a public charitable trust is required to obtain permission from the jurisdictional District Court to file a suit against a third party. The petitioners contended that the trust filing the suit must satisfy the requirements of Section 92 of CPC, as the suit was akin to a representative suit. The Court examined Section 92 of CPC, which mandates obtaining leave of the principal Civil Court to file a suit related to public charities. The Court noted that the suit in question, seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioners, did not fall within the purview of Section 92 of CPC, as it was not related to the internal management of the trust. The judgment concluded that the trial Court's decision to dismiss the application under Section 92 of CPC was justified, as the suit by the trust against a third party was not subject to the permission requirement of Section 92. Therefore, the writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order was dismissed.Separate Judgment: NoJudge: Mr. Suraj GovindarajSummary:The petitioners sought relief through a writ petition to quash an order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Raichur, in a suit filed by a Public Charitable Trust seeking a permanent injunction against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the trust needed permission under Section 92 of CPC to file the suit. However, the Court held that the suit did not fall under the purview of Section 92, as it was not related to the internal management of the trust. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed.