Trust character of conditional dedication under Section 92 CPC affirmed, but leave to sue failed for defective threshold pleadings.

Property dedicated for the development and publicity of the Hindi language, subject to restrictions on sale, mortgage, and management directions, was treated as an obligation in the nature of a trust rather than an absolute transfer. That brought the matter within Section 92 CPC, which applies to public religious or charitable trusts and requires leave before suit. The court also held that leave must be considered on a properly constituted application supported by the necessary pleadings and material, including the plaint for threshold scrutiny; the leave order was therefore procedurally infirm, and liberty was granted to file a fresh application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the property dedicated by a conditional gift created a trust attracting Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and whether leave to institute a suit under that provision could be granted on the material placed before the court, including the absence of the plaint as an annexure to the application.

Analysis: The property was transferred for a specific public purpose, namely the development and publicity of the Hindi language, with accompanying restrictions on sale and mortgage and directions for management. On those features, the dedication was treated as creating an obligation in the nature of a trust rather than an absolute transfer free from trust obligations, bringing the matter within the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The settled law on that provision is that it applies to public trusts of a religious or charitable character and that leave is a pre-condition to suit. At the same time, the court emphasised that the application for leave must be tested on the pleadings and the material required for that purpose, and that the plaint ought to accompany the application so the court can determine maintainability at the threshold.

Conclusion: The dedication was held to fall within Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the court also found procedural infirmity in the manner in which leave had been granted, leading to the grant of liberty to move a fresh appropriate application in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was substantially accepted on the trust character of the dedication, but the ultimate relief was shaped by the procedural requirement governing applications for leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Ratio Decidendi: A dedication of property for a defined public charitable purpose with restrictive conditions may constitute a trust for the purposes of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but leave to sue can be granted only on a properly constituted application supported by the necessary pleadings and material for threshold scrutiny.

---