Case: Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati & Anr, Vs. Ramji Tripathi & Anr

1. The appellants, as plaintiffs, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Civil P.C. alleging breach of the Civil P.C. alleging breach of a trust created for a public purpose of a religions nature and praying for removal of the defendant, the head of the Math in question claiming title to the office under a will executed by the predecessor-in-office and for other reliefs. The District court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit will not lie under Section 92 of the Civil P.C. The High Court, on appeal, upheld that judgment and, this appeal, by special leave, is directed against that judgment.2. Adi Shankaracharya founded Maths at four centres in India about a thousand years ago. The Math with which we are concerned was established by him in Himalayas. This Math was known by the name of Jyotir Math or Jyotish Peeth. For Centuries, the existence of this Math was unknown to the public and even the place where the Math stood had to be found out. In 1940 a society known as Bharat Dharma Mahamandal of Kashi made an effort to discover the Math and the effort proved successful. The relics of the Math were found near Badrikashram. The land on which the relics were found along with certain other property on the banks of Varuna in kashi was acquired by the Society and thereafter the Society created an endowment of the land by a deed dated April 11, 1941 in favour of Jyotir Math and Swami Brahmanand Saraswati (Brahmanand for short), a man renowned for his piety and vedic Learning was installed as the Head of the Math.3. Brahmanand died on May 20, 1953. Before his death he executed a will which was published on June 8, 1953. By the will, he nominated a panel of 4 persons in order of choice indicated in the will to succeed him as head of the Math. His first choice was Swami Shantanand Saraswati, respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 accepted the office. He was installed as Shankaracharya of the Math on June 12, 1953. Thereafter dispute arose among the worshippers of Jyotir Math. A section of the worshippers installed Swami Krishnabodhashram (Krihnabodhashram for short) as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953, as according to them, Brahmanand did not execute any will nominating his successor, and even if he executed a will, it was not executed by him while he was in a sound disposing state of mind and that in accordance with the custom and the rules of the Math, they were entitled to instal a person nominated by them as the Head of the Math.4. Respondent No. 1, who was installed on June 12, 1953 as the Head of the Math, came into possession of the math The worshippers who supported the claim of Krishnabodhashram filed a suit in January; 1954 in the munsiff Court at Lucknow for an injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering with the Math properties. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 1 applied for a succession certificate in the Court of District Judge, Allahabed and that was granted on December, 12, 1955. There-after four persons alleging themselves to be interested in the Jyotir Math, after obtaining permission of the Advocate General, filed the suit under Section 92 of the Civil P.C. against respondent No.1.5. The main allegations in the plaint were that Brahmanand did not execute the will while he was in a sound disposing state of mind, that respondent No.1 had not the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the Vedas and, therefore, he was not qualified to be nominated as successor to the headship of the Math, that he came into possession of the Math properties and has committed breach of trust by applying for grant of succession certificate and other acts, that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953 and that direction of the Court was necessary for the administration of the trust properties. The plaintiffs prayed for the removal of respondent No.1 from the headship of the Math, a declaration that Krishnabodhashram was the duly installed head of the Math and to appoint him as the head, and in the alternative, to appoint any other competent person as the head of the Math. They further prayed for vesting of the properties of the Jyotish Math in the new Head and for rendition of accounts by respondent No.1, etc., and to restrain him from prosecuting the application for succession certificate and also the mutation proceedings.6. The defendant (respondent No. 1) practically denied all the allegations in the plaint and contended that the suit being one primarily for the vindication of the claim of Krishnabodhashram to be the Shankaracharya of the Math, was not maintainable under Sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.7. The District Court found that Brahmanand executed the will while he was in sound disposing state of mind, that respondent No.1 being one of the nominees under the will having the prior claim would have been entitled to succeed as the Head of the Math but for the fact that he has not learned in Sanskrit and the Vedas which, was a necessary qualification for holding the headship of the Math. It further found that the allegations with respect to the breach of trust by respondent No. 1 had not been proved, that Krishnabodhashram was validly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math but that the suit as it was brought for the vindication of the right of Krishnabodhashram to the headship of the Math, was not maintainable under Section 92 of the Civil P.C.8. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the suit was incompetent under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.9. It is clear from the allegations in the plaint that the plaintiffs primarily wanted a declaration from Court that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953, that he came into possession of the properties of the Math and, therefore, the Court should appoint him as the Shankaracharya of the Math. In order to enable the Court to give that declaration, the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the will nominating respondent No.1 as successor of Brahmanand was not executed by Brahmanand when he was in a sound disposing state of mind and that even if the will was validly executed, respondent No.1 did not have the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the Vedas and so, he was not qualified to be nominated as the Head of the Math and therefore, his installation as the Shankaracharaya of the Math of June 12, 1953, was invalid. There was no allegation in the plaint questioning or even casting any doubt on the validity of the installation of Krishnabodhashram as the Shankaracharya of the Math and there was also no allegation against him as respects his management of the trust properties. Then, how was it that the plaintiffs prayed in the alternative for appointment of some other person as Shankaracharya? The relief for the appointment of Krishnabodharshram as the Shankaracharya of the Math by the Court and the alternative relief to appoint some other person as the Shankaracharya, without any allegation as to the circumstance which would invalidate the installation of Krishnabodhashram and without impleading him as a party to the suit would show the strain of the draftsman to dress up the plaint with prayers to make it appear that the plaintiffs were the disinterested champions of the right of the public and not the mere partisan advocates of the personal cause of Krishnabodashram.10.A suit under Section 92 is a suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable character. Such a suit can proceed only on the allegation that there was a breach of such trust or that the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the trust and the plaintiff must pray for one or more of the reliefs that are mentioned in the section. It is, therefore, clear that if the allegation of breach of trust is not substantiated or that the plaintiff had not made out a case for any direction by the Court for proper administration of the trust, the very foundation of a suit under the section would fail; and, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindicate the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested, then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92,(see Shanmukham v. Govinda, AIR 1938 Mad 92 ; Tirumalai Devesthanams v Krishnayya, AIR 1943 Mad 466 (FB); Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia,(1969) 3 SCR 83 = (AIR 1969 SC 884 ) and Mulla; Civil Procedure Code, (13th ed.) Vol. I, p. 400).A suit whose primary object or purpose is to remedy the infringement of an individual right or to vindicate a private right does not fall under the section. It is not every suit claiming the reliefs specified in the section that can be brought under the section but only the suits which, besides claiming any of the reliefs, are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights, and in deciding whether a suit falls within section 92 the court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit was brought. This is the reason why trustees of public trust of a religions nature are precluded from suing under the section to vindicate their individual or personal rights. It is quite immaterial whether the trustees pray for declaration of their personal rights or deny the personal rights of one or more defendants. When the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside S. 92.11. We see no reason why the same principle should not apply, if what the plaintiffs seek to vindicate here is the individual or personal right of Kirshnabodhashram to be installed as Shankaracharay of the Math. Where two or more persons interested in a trust a suit purporting to be under Section 92, the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. If, on the allegations in the plaint, it is clear that the purpose of the suit was to vindicate the individual right of Krishnabodhashram to be the Shankaracharya, there is no reason to hold that suit was brought to uphold the right of the beneficiaries of the trust, merely because the suit was filed by two more members of the public after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General and claiming one or more of the reliefs specified in the section. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under Section 92, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. As we said, it is the object or the purpose of the suit and not the reliefs that should decide whether it is one for vindicating the right of the public or the individual right of the plaintiffs or third persons.12. The Trial Court, after reading the allegations in the plaint and after looking into the entire evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the suit was primarily one for declaration that Krishanbodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25,1953 and that respondent No. 1 had no right to be nominated as the Head of the Math by Brahmanand as he did not possess the requisite qualification and that his possession of the trust property was only in the capacity of a trustee de son tort, and so he must be removed from the headship of the Math. The high court saw no reason to differ from the finding. We would be slow to disturb a finding of this nature especially when we see that the allegation in the plaint are reasonably susceptible of being so read. We think that the purpose of the suit was to settle the controversy as to whether Krishnabodhashram or respondent No.1 had the better claim to the headship of the Math and to the possession and management of its properties by obtaining a declaration of the court. If the real purpose in bringing the suit was to vindicate the general right of the public to have the rightful claimant appointed to the office, there was no reason why the plaintiffs omitted to implead or at least refer in the plaint to the three persons nominated by Brahmanand in his will to succeed him in the order indicated therein especially when it is seen that the plaintiffs accepted the customs of the Math to have the successor nominated by the incumbent for the time being of the office of Shankracharya.13. The Trial Court as well as the High Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations regarding the breach of trust said to have been committed by respondent No. 1. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, there was an allegation that the direction of the Court was necessary for the administration of the trust. But no reasons were given in the plaint why the plaintiffs were seeking the direction of the Court. There were no clear allegations of maladministration viz. that respondent No. 1 was diverting the trust properties for his personal benefit or that he was committing any devastative. The High Court was of the view that since the plaintiffs did not plead facts and particulars as regards the defect in the machinery for administration which had crept in under custom or rules which required rectification, the prayer for direction was a mere pretence to bring the suit under Section 92. A direction cannot be given by the court unless it is shown that it is necessary for the proper administration of the trust. We do not think it necessary to decide for the purpose of this case whether the words " where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust" must be interpreted as meaning that where the Court has to give directions in the nature of framing a scheme or otherwise for the administration of trust or whether those words can refer only to directions given to existing trustee when there is one or two new trustees when one is to be appointed or to directions when there are allegations of maladministration amounting to breach of trust. It is sufficient for the purpose of this case to say that the prayer for direction was a prayer in vacuum without any basis in reason or facts.14. It is, no doubt, true that it is only the allegations in the plaint that should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 (See Association of R.D.B. Bagga Singh v. Gurnam Singh, AIR 1972 Raj 263 ; Sohan Singh v. Achhar Singh, AIR 1968 Punj and Har 463 and Radha Krishna v. Lachhmi Narain, AIR 1948 Oudh 203). But, if after evidence is taken, it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in facts or reason but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the section, than a suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed. This was one of the grounds relied on by the High Court for holding that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 92.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]9. It is clear from the allegations in the plaint that the plaintiffs primarily wanted a declaration from Court that Krishnabodhashram was duly installed as the Shankaracharya of the Math on June 25, 1953, that he came into possession of the properties of the Math and, therefore, the Court should appoint him as the Shankaracharya of the Math. In order to enable the Court to give that declaration, the plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the will nominating respondent No.1 as successor of Brahmanand was not executed by Brahmanand when he was in a sound disposing state of mind and that even if the will was validly executed, respondent No.1 did not have the requisite learning in Sanskrit and the Vedas and so, he was not qualified to be nominated as the Head of the Math and therefore, his installation as the Shankaracharaya of the Math of June 12, 1953, was invalid. There was no allegation in the plaint questioning or even casting any doubt on the validity of the installation of Krishnabodhashram as the Shankaracharya of the Math and there was also no allegation against him as respects his management of the trust properties. Then, how was it that the plaintiffs prayed in the alternative for appointment of some other person as Shankaracharya? The relief for the appointment of Krishnabodharshram as the Shankaracharya of the Math by the Court and the alternative relief to appoint some other person as the Shankaracharya, without any allegation as to the circumstance which would invalidate the installation of Krishnabodhashram and without impleading him as a party to the suit would show the strain of the draftsman to dress up the plaint with prayers to make it appear that the plaintiffs were the disinterested champions of the right of the public and not the mere partisan advocates of the personal cause of Krishnabodashram.We see no reason why the same principle should not apply, if what the plaintiffs seek to vindicate here is the individual or personal right of Kirshnabodhashram to be installed as Shankaracharay of the Math. Where two or more persons interested in a trust a suit purporting to be under Section 92, the question whether the suit is to vindicate the personal or individual right of a third person or to assert the right of the public must be decided after taking into account the dominant purpose of the suit in the light of the allegations in the plaint. If, on the allegations in the plaint, it is clear that the purpose of the suit was to vindicate the individual right of Krishnabodhashram to be the Shankaracharya, there is no reason to hold that suit was brought to uphold the right of the beneficiaries of the trust, merely because the suit was filed by two more members of the public after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate General and claiming one or more of the reliefs specified in the section. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under Section 92, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. As we said, it is the object or the purpose of the suit and not the reliefs that should decide whether it is one for vindicating the right of the public or the individual right of the plaintiffs or third persons.The Trial Court as well as the High Court found that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations regarding the breach of trust said to have been committed by respondent No. 1. In paragraph 20 of the plaint, there was an allegation that the direction of the Court was necessary for the administration of the trust. But no reasons were given in the plaint why the plaintiffs were seeking the direction of the Court. There were no clear allegations of maladministration viz. that respondent No. 1 was diverting the trust properties for his personal benefit or that he was committing any devastative. The High Court was of the view that since the plaintiffs did not plead facts and particulars as regards the defect in the machinery for administration which had crept in under custom or rules which required rectification, the prayer for direction was a mere pretence to bring the suit under Section 92. A direction cannot be given by the court unless it is shown that it is necessary for the proper administration of the trust. We do not think it necessary to decide for the purpose of this case whether the words " where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust" must be interpreted as meaning that where the Court has to give directions in the nature of framing a scheme or otherwise for the administration of trust or whether those words can refer only to directions given to existing trustee when there is one or two new trustees when one is to be appointed or to directions when there are allegations of maladministration amounting to breach of trust. It is sufficient for the purpose of this case to say that the prayer for direction was a prayer in vacuum without any basis in reason or facts.14. It is, no doubt, true that it is only the allegations in the plaint that should be looked into in the first instance to see whether the suit falls within the ambit of SectionBut, if after evidence is taken, it is found that the breach of trust alleged has not been made out and that the prayer for direction of the court is vague and is not based on any solid foundation in facts or reason but is made only with a view to bring the suit under the section, than a suit purporting to be brought under Section 92 must be dismissed. This was one of the grounds relied on by the High Court for holding that the suit was not maintainable under Sec. 92.