Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 the plaintiffs were entitled to leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the suit was maintainable.
Analysis: A suit under Section 92 lies only where there is a public charitable or religious trust, the reliefs claimed fall within the section, and the plaintiffs are persons having an interest in the trust. The pleadings showed that the first defendant was a registered society, while the trust created for the limited purpose of construction had already been dissolved. The first plaintiff's claim was also found to be intertwined with his personal employment grievances, and the second plaintiff's allegations were of the same character. The requirements of a subsisting trust and of interest in the trust were therefore not satisfied. Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 did not convert the governing body of the society into trustees for the purpose of Section 92.
Conclusion: Leave to sue under Section 92 was rightly refused and the suit was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 92 applies only to a subsisting public charitable or religious trust and only where the plaintiffs are persons genuinely interested in that trust, not where the dispute is essentially a challenge to a society's management or a vehicle for private grievances.