Representative suit binding effect and trust scheme modification turn on true representation and the real character of beneficiaries.

A decree in a representative suit under Section 92 CPC binds only persons whose interests were truly represented; because the earlier suit was confined to the Cutchi Memon community and did not represent the wider Sunni Muslim body or other worshippers, res judicata did not bar the present suit. A settled public trust scheme may be modified when it rests on a mistaken foundation or omits genuinely interested persons; since the mosque was found to be a central Sunni mosque and not an exclusively Cutchi Memon institution, the existing scheme required amendment rather than a complete fresh remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the present suit by res judicata, and (ii) whether the settled scheme for the public trust could be revised on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the present suit by res judicata.

Analysis: A decree in a suit under Section 92 operates as res judicata only to the extent that the plaintiffs or defendants in that suit represented the interests now sought to be agitated. The earlier suit was framed and prosecuted on the specific footing that the mosque belonged to the Cutchi Memon community and that the suit represented only that community's interest. The pleadings and the conduct of the parties did not show representation of the wider Sunni Muslim body or of the non-Cutchi Memon worshippers. Explanation VI to Section 11 applies only where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a common right, and the necessary basis for constructive representation was absent here.

Conclusion: The present suit was not barred by res judicata.

Issue (ii): Whether the settled scheme for the public trust could be revised on the facts found.

Analysis: A scheme settled for a public trust is not to be lightly disturbed, but it may be modified where the scheme rests on an erroneous foundation or where the interests of persons genuinely concerned with the trust were omitted. The evidence showed that the mosque was not exclusively a Cutchi Memon institution, but a central mosque of the Sunni Muslim community of Bangalore, and that the earlier scheme had proceeded on a mistaken assumption as to exclusive Cutchi Memon entitlement. That infirmity justified revision of the scheme, though not a wholesale remand for a fresh scheme in entirely new form. The proper course was to retain the scheme with specific modifications to reflect the true character of the trust and to broaden access to persons interested in it.

Conclusion: The scheme was liable to be modified, and the High Court's remand order was not to be sustained in its original form.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, but the relief was moulded by substituting specified amendments to the existing scheme instead of directing a fresh remand for complete re-framing.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree in a representative suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure binds only those whose interests were truly represented, and a settled trust scheme may be altered where it rests on a mistaken foundation or fails to reflect the real body of beneficiaries.

---