Dominant purpose test under Section 92 CPC barred a suit seeking declaration of the rightful Shankaracharya of a religious math.

A suit under Section 92 CPC is maintainable only when it concerns a public religious or charitable trust and is brought in a representative capacity to vindicate public rights, either for breach of trust or for directions on trust administration. The decisive test is the dominant purpose of the suit, not the form of the reliefs claimed. Here, the pleadings and evidence showed that the real object was to secure a declaration that one claimant, rather than the defendant, was the rightful Shankaracharya of a religious math, and the allegations of breach of trust and need for directions lacked factual foundation. The suit therefore fell outside Section 92 and was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit purportedly under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable when its real object was to establish the right of a particular person to the office of head of a religious math and the supporting reliefs were framed to obtain that declaration.

Analysis: A suit under Section 92 lies only where a public trust of a religious or charitable character is involved and the plaintiffs sue in a representative capacity for vindication of public rights, either on proof of breach of trust or on a genuine need for directions for administration of the trust. The decisive inquiry is the dominant purpose of the suit, not merely the form of the reliefs claimed. On the pleadings and evidence, the suit was found to be directed mainly to securing a declaration that one claimant, and not the defendant, was the rightful Shankaracharya, while the allegations of breach of trust and the need for directions lacked factual foundation.

Conclusion: The suit did not fall within Section 92 and was not maintainable.

---