<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1974 (8) TMI 136 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464775</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:16:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (8) TMI 136 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464775</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>