SRI EDUPUGANTI RAGHAVENDRA RAO MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTEE GUDLAVALLERU Vs. POTLURI ATCHAYYA
LAWS(APH)-1955-11-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 11,1955

SRI EDUPUGANTI RAGHAVENDRA RAO MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTEE, GUDLAVALLERU Appellant
VERSUS
POTLURI ATCHAYYA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOPAL LAL SETT V. PURNACHANDRA BASIK [REFERRED TO]
SINGARA MUDALIAR V. GOVINDASAMI CHETTY [FOLLOWED ON]
BADRI DAS V.CHUNNI LAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Gode'for amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 176/54 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada. The suit was instituted in a representative capacity against the defendants, members of Sri Edupuganti Raghavendrarao Memorial Committee, Gudlavalleru for a declaration that the committee has ceased to exist by reason of not holding meetings as required by the rules governing the administration of the institution and for an injunction restraining defendants 2 to 10 from functioning as members of the Gommitcee and for others reliefs. The suit institution a High School was started in or about the year 1945 with donations and subscriptions from the public. The founders of the school framed the bye-laws and Articles of Association and had them registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. It is alleged in the plaint inter alia that under rule 8 of the regulations for the governance of this institution any member of the committee who failed to attend consecutively three meetings would cease to be a member thereof and that since no meetings were held for six months the members of the committee have ipso-facto become defunct and they had no power to hold a meeting subsequent to that date. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint by adding a prayer:
"If in the circumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court deems it necessary to frame a scheme constituting a Committee of management and empowering one member of such committee to act as the President and another member to act as Secretary from out of General Body of Donors and subscribers and to vest the management and the properties of the school in the said committee embodying such necessary directions in the scheme with a view to carry on and facilitate the management of the school and its property."

(2.)This petition was opposed on various grounds, the one relevant for the purpose of this enquiry being that section 92, Civil Procedure Code was a bar to it. The trial Court allowed the amendment notwithstanding this opposition of the defendants. Tn this revision petition, the propriety of the order is canvassed. The contention pressed upon me by the counsel for the petitioners is that the. trial Gourt could not allow the amendment as it would fundamentally change the character of the suit and would oust its jurisdiction. The answer of Mr. Suryanarayana, counsel for the respondents to this is that the nature of the suit is not in any way altered, the body of the plaint remaining intact and there being only an addition to the relief and that section 92, Civil Procedure Code is inapplicable to this case. According to him, the amendment would not bring the suit within the. ambit of section 92 for the reason that a High School cannot be regarded as a charitable institution and that in any event it is a private trust. It is difficult to agree with these propositions. An institution started for imparting education surely comes within the scope of section 92, for the purpose for which it was started is of a charitable nature. I am convinced that a school of this description certainly attracts the provisions of section 92, Civil Procedure Code.
(3.)The next submission of Mr. Suryanarayana, namely that it is a private trust and therefore civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits for establishing claims for private trust is equally untenable. He placed before me a number of rulings of the Calcutta High Court and the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Gopal Lal Sell v. Puma Chandra Basik, (1921) L.R. 49 I.A. 100 : I.L.R.49 Cal. 459 : 43 M.L.J. 116 (P.C.) which laid down that it was competent for a Civil Gourt to settle claims for the administration of private trusts. The principle underlying these pronouncements would apply only if the present one is regarded as a private trust. Therefore, it is not necessary forme to examine these decisions at length, since the point for determination is whether this is a private or a public trust.
;


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