Section 92 CPC can cover a registered society where fiduciary control, charitable objects, and trust-related reliefs are prima facie shown.

A registered society may fall within Section 92 CPC where its funds and property are held in a fiduciary capacity for charitable objects and the pleadings prima facie disclose constructive trust, breach of fiduciary obligation, or need for court directions in administration. The Court also treated a real and substantial connection to the trust as sufficient for "persons having an interest in the trust," and applied the dominant purpose test to hold that reliefs such as removal of trustees, accounts, and framing of a scheme can bring a suit within Section 92 even if some personal grievances are also pleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be treated as a constructive trust for the purposes of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the plaint disclosed a breach of trust or necessity for directions of the court in the administration of the trust; (iii) whether the plaintiffs were persons having an interest in the trust and had instituted the suit in a representative capacity; and (iv) whether the reliefs sought and the dominant purpose of the suit fell within Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be treated as a constructive trust for the purposes of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A registered society is not, by itself, an express trust merely because its property vests in its governing body under Section 5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. However, Section 5 contemplates vesting in trustees where a separate trust exists or is created, and the Court accepted that a constructive trust may also arise where the society's fiduciaries divert or withhold property received for charitable objects. The pleadings and governing documents showed charitable objects, a no-profit structure, and control of funds in fiduciary hands, supporting the prima facie application of the doctrine.

Conclusion: The society could be treated, on the facts pleaded, as falling within the ambit of a constructive trust.

Issue (ii): whether the plaint disclosed a breach of trust or necessity for directions of the court in the administration of the trust.

Analysis: For Section 92, allegations must show either breach of trust or that court directions are necessary for proper administration. The plaint alleged siphoning of funds, financial impropriety, diversion of donor money, and mismanagement. At the leave stage, the Court was not to conduct a full factual inquiry, but only to see whether the averments prima facie disclosed the condition. The allegations were held sufficient to show at least a need for judicial directions and possible breach of fiduciary obligations, though the truth of those allegations would remain for trial.

Conclusion: The requirement of breach of trust or necessity for directions was prima facie satisfied.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiffs were persons having an interest in the trust and had instituted the suit in a representative capacity.

Analysis: The phrase "persons having an interest in the trust" requires a real, present and substantial interest, not a remote or illusory one. The plaintiffs were closely associated with the society's functioning, one being a co-founder and former president and the other a current board member. The suit also disclosed allegations affecting the wider body of beneficiaries and not merely private disputes, so the representative character was not negated merely because personal grievances were also pleaded.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were persons interested in the trust and the suit was maintainable in a representative capacity.

Issue (iv): whether the reliefs sought and the dominant purpose of the suit fell within Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between purely personal claims and reliefs relatable to trust administration. Prayers for removal of trustees, rendition of accounts, and settlement of a scheme were held to fall within clauses of Section 92(1), even though some prayers also reflected personal grievance. The dominant purpose test required looking at the plaint as a whole, and the presence of some private reliefs did not defeat maintainability where the suit also sought reliefs of the kind contemplated by Section 92 and was founded on allegations affecting public charitable administration.

Conclusion: The reliefs and the dominant purpose of the suit brought it within Section 92.

Final Conclusion: The leave granted under Section 92 was upheld, and the suit was allowed to proceed for adjudication on the alleged constructive trust and related reliefs, while purely personal grievances were left outside the special jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered society may fall within Section 92 where its properties are held in a fiduciary capacity and the pleadings prima facie disclose a constructive trust, breach of fiduciary obligation, and reliefs of the kind enumerated in Section 92, assessed by the dominant purpose of the suit rather than isolated personal prayers.

---