https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272512 A suit concerning a public religious endowment was not barred for want of Advocate General sanction because Section 92 CPC applies only where the suit claims one or more of the specific reliefs named in the provision; declarations and restraints outside that scope do not attract the bar. A compromise decree in an earlier proceeding also did not operate as res judicata, because a representative suit loses that character when strangers to the trust are added and reliefs beyond Section 92 are sought, and a compromise entered into by only some plaintiffs cannot bind non-consenting members of the public in those circumstances. The appeal succeeded and the plaintiffs' decree was restored. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 1927 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 11:06:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272512 A suit concerning a public religious endowment was not barred for want of Advocate General sanction because Section 92 CPC applies only where the suit claims one or more of the specific reliefs named in the provision; declarations and restraints outside that scope do not attract the bar. A compromise decree in an earlier proceeding also did not operate as res judicata, because a representative suit loses that character when strangers to the trust are added and reliefs beyond Section 92 are sought, and a compromise entered into by only some plaintiffs cannot bind non-consenting members of the public in those circumstances. The appeal succeeded and the plaintiffs' decree was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Dec 1927 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272512