R M NARAYANA CHETTIAR Vs. N LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR
LAWS(SC)-1990-10-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on October 11,1990

R.M.NARAYANA CHETTIAR Appellant
VERSUS
N.LAKSHMANAN CHETTIAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE [CONSIDERED]
MAYER SIMON [CONSIDERED]
PRAGDASJI GURU BHAGWANDASJI VS. ISHWARLALBHAI NARSIBHAI [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI PARAMATMANAND SARASWATI VS. RAMJI TRIPATHI [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SENGUNTHAR CHARITABLE TRUST VS. R MANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-356] [REFERRED TO]
A. DURUVASULU NAIDU VS. BHAJARANG EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-138] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL NANDA VS. ESCORTS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-261] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN, VS. KURAKKAVU DEVASWOM TRUST BHARANA SAMITHI, [LAWS(KER)-2009-5-271] [REFERRED TO]
VIR DIGAMBAR JAIN DHARMASHALA AND SRI MAHAVIR JAIN DHARMARTH AUSHADHALAI VS. PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
K S THANGAPANDIAN VS. JAYAPAL [LAWS(MAD)-1994-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
THAKARDAWARA VS. NAGAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1998-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR VS. BHUSHAN KUMAR OBEROI [LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
RAY SUDHAN VS. SAJEENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2016-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
V RAJASEKARAN VS. M RAJENDRAN TRUSTEE M G R MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-267] [REFERRED TO]
L M MENEZES VS. MOST REV ARUL DAS JAMAS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
Marimallappa Education Trust, represented by its Honorary Secretary, Sri. K.N. Panchaksharaswamy and others VS. Sri M. Guruswamy B.E. S/o Late Mahadevappa Retired Executive Engineer and others [LAWS(KAR)-2010-4-275] [REFERRED TO]
MOKKAPATI HARIHARA PRASAD VS. NELAKUDITI NAGESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1993-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
M.V. NARAYANAN VS. PERIYADAN NARAYANAN NAIR [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-127] [REFERRED TO]
Sangram Mudali VS. Sukant Mohapatra [LAWS(ORI)-2013-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION VS. BABBALAN [LAWS(KER)-2010-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
N ANANDAN VS. AYYANNA GOUNDER [LAWS(MAD)-1993-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU PILLAI VS. V P PARAMASIVAN [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
APJ SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL VS. HAZARI LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-233] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL TIWARI, CHELA SRI RAM DAS (SARVRAKAR) AND OTHERS VS. LAKHAN SINGH SON OF SUKH SAHAB SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2000-10-102] [REFERRED]
ANIKADAVU MADAMANAI LATHEKARAR VS. K THANDAPANI [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-178] [REFERRED TO]
BABU LAL VS. RAVI NARAYAN [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-220] [REFERRED TO]
JAI GURU DEO DHARAM PRACHARAK SANSTHA VS. RAM PRATAP [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSH CLUB KARIMANOOR VS. V.V. PHILIP [LAWS(KER)-2012-11-670] [REFERRED TO]
REV.FR. N.K.YACOB VS. REV.FR.BABY PAUL [LAWS(KER)-2012-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
R KANNAN ADITYAN VS. B S ADITYAN [LAWS(MAD)-1996-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
BASHESHWAR DASS VS. ZILE SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2001-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
MUHURTAAM EVENT MANAGEMENT PVT LTD VS. T.K.S.VILLALAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-421] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH TULSHIAN VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR BANKA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
KANAPATHY CHARITABLE TRUST AND ORS. VS. K.V. KARTHILK AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-122] [REFERRED TO]
N.P. THANGARAJ VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-216] [REFERRED TO]
M ANANDAN VS. AYYANNA GOUNDER MEMORIAL TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-1993-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
SENGUNTHAR CHARITABLE TRUST REP BY ITS SECRETARY VS. KARUR VYSYA BANK TIRUCHENGODE BRANCH SANGAGIRI ROAD [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-224] [REFERRED TO]
LT GEN C K KAPUR RETD VS. GURUJI KA ASHRAM [LAWS(DLH)-2007-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHISHIR BAJAJ VS. INDIA YOUTH CENTRES TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-411] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGIRI CHELLA SWAMI VS. SATYA GYAN NIKETAN [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
VED PRAKASH VS. VED MATA GAYATRI TRUST [LAWS(UTN)-2005-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT GUPTA AND ANR. VS. LALA DIWAN CHAND TRUST AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-349] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL TIWARI VS. LAKHAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
LILANAND THAKUR PAGAL BABA TRUST PRABANDH SAMITI VS. THAKUR RADHA GOVINDJI MAHARAJ VRINDABAN [LAWS(ALL)-2000-5-44] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1996-7-293] [REFERRED]
S.K.S. RANGACHARYULU & ANR. VS. KAILASH VYAS & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-5-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYODAYA TRUST VS. MOHAN PRASAD R [LAWS(SC)-2008-2-136] [REFERRED TO]
Hindu Community in General and Citizens VS. Commissioner [LAWS(MAD)-2005-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR VIJAY MERCHANT VS. PUSHPAKUMAR M D THACKERSY [LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL TIWARI VS. LAKHAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-66] [REFERRED]
NADIGAR SANGHAM CHARITABLE TRUST VS. S.MURUGAN ALIAS POOCHI MURUGAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-199] [REFERRED TO]
VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. G.V. SAMPATH [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-305] [REFERRED TO]
CLEMENT SELVARAJ VS. JOHN DE MONTE TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
CLEMENT SELVARAJ VS. JOHN DE MONTE TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
M GOVINDARAJU VS. AIR OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF AIR FORCE TRAINING COMMAND HEBBAL BANGALORE AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-1992-4-22] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND 3 OTHERS VS. GAURAV JAIN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-182] [REFERRED TO]
HAMMAD AHMED VS. ABDUL MUEED [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL TIWARI VS. LAKHAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2000-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
BROOKE HOSTIPAL FOR ANIMALS VS. BROOK HOSTIPAL FOR ANIMALS I [LAWS(DLH)-2008-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST VS. S RAMANATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2013-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
S N PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANA DAS VS. G V KRISHNA S/O LATE G V RAO [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SANT LAL VS. SUDAKAR [LAWS(P&H)-2000-1-3] [FOLLOWED]
VARKEY ABRAHAM VS. ST. THOMAS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH [LAWS(KER)-2009-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
M S PADMARAJAIAH VS. COMMISSIONER BANGLORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE [LAWS(KAR)-2007-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAJ. GENERAL (RETD.) S.C. SURI VS. HIMALAYAN BRAHMO SAMAJ MANDIR & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-251] [REFERRED TO]
S JADAV CHAND KANUGA VS. CHANDRAPRABHA JAIN SWETAMBAR TEMPLE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-434] [FOLLOWED ON]
TIRUPATTUR NAGARATHU VYSIYARGAL SANGAM VS. TIRUPATTUR PERIYAKULAM NANDAVANAM INAM LAND TENANTS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
G R GOVINDARAJULU VS. R SETHURAO [LAWS(MAD)-1998-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN T.J. AND ORS. VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-204] [REFERRED TO]
BABA BHOOT NATH DHARMART NYAS VS. TAJANDER SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2002-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN VS. KOOVALASSERI SREE MAHADEVAR KSHETHRAM TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2001-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
GAUTAM GAMBHIR VS. JAI AMBAY TRADERS & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
THANKAPPAN ADISHAR AND ORS. VS. PANAYANARKAVU TEMPLE TRUST AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-691] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND GOYAL VS. ACHARYA GYAN AYURVED FOUNDATION TRUST [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
B S ADITYAN VS. B RAMACHANDRAN ADITYAN [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
ST PETERS ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH VS. FR ABRAHAM MATHEWS [LAWS(KER)-2011-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
RANGANNA VS. CHIKKANNA [LAWS(KAR)-1995-10-20] [FOLLOWED ON]
VINAY RAI VS. RAM KRISHAN AND SONS CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(DLH)-2009-11-231] [REFERRED TO]
VEMULAPALLI RAMA KRISHNA PRASAD VS. VEMULAPALLI VENKATA NARAYANA DAS [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-103] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH VS. JOGIINDER SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2019-9-138] [REFERRED TO]
SHEVAPET SOWRASHTRA VIDHYALAYA SABAI TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT 64, MANICKAM STREET, SHEVAPET, SALEM VS. SRI PANDURANGANADHASWAMI DEVASTHANAM REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES, V.H.JAGADEESH D.NO.113, MANICKAM STREET, SHEVAPET, SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
M HARIHARA PRASAD VS. N NAGESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1993-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
MAHANA-AMAR NATH CHELA MAHANT CHATTAR DASS CHAIRMAN BABA BHUMAN SHAM VS. MILLAKH RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-1995-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
ST. MARYS CHURCH VS. SAJU [LAWS(KER)-2001-3-61] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SATHYA SAI LOKA SEVA TRUST VS. SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-185] [REFERRED TO]
L M Menezes VS. Rt Rev Dr Lawrence Pius [LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-112] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Special Leave granted. Counsel heard.
(2.)These two appeals are filed by Special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Revision Petitions Nos. 517 and 518 of 1989. These appeals raise an interesting question as to whether it is obligatory on the Court, before granting leave to institute a suit as required under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to give an opportunity to the respondents to show cause against the grant of such leave, and whether leave granted without such opportunity having been given is void.
(3.)The appellants instituted Suit No. O.S. 55 of 1987 in the court of the learned subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in Tamil Nadu against the respondents as a representative suit inter alia praying for framing a scheme for a public charitable trust. It is common ground that the reliefs prayed for in the suit were such that leave under S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was required for instituting the suit. On the same day on which the suit was filed by lodging the plaint in court an application was made praying for leave to institute the suit under S. 92 of the Code. Without issuing any notice to the respondents, the said court granted leave by passing an order reading "permitted" and issued summons to the respondents. In March 1988 the respondents filed an interim application before the learned Subordinate Judge for revoking the leave granted inter alia on the ground that the respondents had not been given any opportunity to be heard before leave was granted. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the said application on the ground that the grant of leave was an administrative act of the court and no notice to the respondents was required before such leave was granted. The respondents then preferred a Civil Revision Petition in the Madras High Court which has been allowed by a judgment delivered by learned single Judge. He took the view that an analysis of the provisions of S. 92 of the Code shows that in order to institute a representative suit as contemplated in the said Section two or more persons must have an interest in the trust and they should have obtained the leave of the court before they institute the suit. The learned single Judge held that while the said section enables persons interested in a public trust to file a suit to secure the proper administration and management of the trust and its properties by its trustees, it also imposes a check on the institution of such suits by the imposition of certain conditions, one of which is the, obtaining of leave from the court. It was held that it is the grant of leave which confers on the person concerned a right to institute a suit under S. 92 of the Code. If there were any facts which might, disentitle the applicants for leave from obtaining the leave of the court, these could be best brought to the notice of the court by the party arrayed on the opposite side. The learned Judge also referred to the provisions of S. 104(1) (ffa) of the Code whereby an order under S. 91 or S. 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in S. 91 is made appealable. The learned Judge followed the decision of the High Court of Madras in T. M. Shanmugam v. The Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution (1984) 2 Mad LJ 440: AIR 1985 Madras 93,and held that as the leave had been granted without any notice to the respondents, it was void and liable to be set aside. The learned Judge allowed the revision petitions, set aside the leave and held that the suit could not be entertained and was liable to be dismissed. It is against this decision that these appeals have been preferred.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.