VIDYODAYA TRUST Vs. R MOHAN PRASAD
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on August 25,2006

VIDYODAYA TRUST Appellant
VERSUS
MOHAN PRASAD R. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SRIMAD UJJAINI SADDHARMA VS. S.S.PATIL [LAWS(KAR)-2023-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR ARCBISHOP VS. P.A.LALAN THARAKAN [LAWS(KER)-2016-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
K V NATARAJAN VS. K V ANANTHARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-476] [REFERRED TO]
MD NOORULLAH SHAREEF VS. SR POST MASTER GENERAL POST [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
K. PERUMAL VS. D. MURALIDHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
DEVASSY VS. ADBULLA KOYA HAJI [LAWS(KER)-2010-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
RAMZAN MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND OTHERS VS. FAREEDA AKHTER [LAWS(J&K)-2018-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH AND ORS VS. RAMJAS FOUNDATION [LAWS(DLH)-2018-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
Md.Noorullah Shareef VS. Senior Post Master, General Post Office (GPO), Buxibazar, Cuttack-1 [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-40] [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]
ADARSH EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. N KUMARASWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-266] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA KHANDARI VS. ANIL KUMAR KAKKAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-161] [REFERRED TO]
MANIVANNAN VS. P. AMBAL DEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-197] [REFERRED TO]
PACHAMUTHU VS. K. THANGAMUTHU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-1-58] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)While in one of the appeals challenge is to the legality of the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in CRP No.1260 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, in the other appeal challenge is to the judgment passed on 20.8.2004 in WP(C) No.14961 of 2004 by another learned Single Judge of the said High Court.
(3.)Essentially the factual position is as follows : Respondents as plaintiffs filed OP No. 238 of 2000 before the District Court, Ernakulam under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (in short the Trust Act) in respect of Vidyodaya Trust and applied to the Court for direction for management and administration of the said trust and the school run by the trust. But the said Court by order dated 31.1.2000 held that the OP was not maintainable and dismissed the petition. Thereafter the suit No. 20 of 2000 was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs claiming several reliefs. The respondents filed an application (IA 349 of 2000) seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the CPC). According to the appellants, without notice to them the concerned Court granted leave to the respondents to institute the suit. The suit was numbered as OS 20 of 2000. Plaintiffs filed written statement inter alia taking the stand that suit was actuated by personal motives. The suit under Section 92 CPC is of a special nature which pre-supposes existence of a Public Trust of religious or charitable character. From the averments in the plaint and the reliefs sought for it is clear that the plaintiffs were not suing to vindicate rights of the public, and it has not been filed in the representative capacity. The plaintiffs four in number are trustees who instituted both the suits against other trustees for personal reliefs and as individuals and seeking vindication of alleged individual rights and not as representatives of the public. Therefore, the suit as framed is not maintainable under Section 92 CPC. The defendants filed an application before the District Judge, Ernakulam for hearing as preliminary issue, the question of maintainability of the suit. On the basis of contentions raised by the plaintiffs as well as defendants, the Court framed preliminary issue as to whether the suit as framed is maintainable under Section 92 CPC. By order dated 11.4.2003 the Court held that the suit was maintainable.


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