BHANDARI, J - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jodhpur dated 11th of December, 1961 dismissing the suit filed under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Mansukh Ram, Sita Ram and Jassu Bharti against Hemaram defendant. Of these plaintiffs, Sitaram died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court and Mansukh Ram and Jassu Bharti have come in appeal. The suit was contested by the defendant on several grounds one of which was that the plaintiffs had no interest in the alleged trust. The trial court held that Mansukh Ram (Plaintiff No. 1) had such interest in the trust as would entitle him to file the suit but the other plaintiffs had no such interest. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that it was a case in which there was a public trust. On these grounds the suit was dismissed.
(2.) IN this appeal, the first point to be examined is : Whether the two plaintiffs - Sitaram and Jassu Bharti - had such interest in the trust as entitled them to file a suit under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. IN the plaint it has not been disclosed what interest these two plaintiffs had in the trust. Two issues have been framed by the trial court on this point : - "issue No. 5 - Whether the plaintiffs have no right to bring this suit?" "issue No. 8 - Whether the plaintiffs, or any two of them have any interest in the trust so as to entitle them to file the suit?" In spite of these issues, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to show that Sitaram and Jassu Bharti had any interest in the trust which entitled them to bring the suit under sec. 92 CPC. We may, in this connection, refer to the discussion of evidence in the judgment of the trial court - "it is clear that there is nothing on the record of this case that these two plaintiffs by names Seetaram and Jassu Bharti have any interest in the alleged Ramola trust. None of these plaintiffs have entered in the witness box to say anything in this respect. It is true that Seetaram died during the pendency of the suit, still the plaintiff Mansukhram could have said in his statement, when there was a specific issue in this respect that this Seetaram was a beneficiary under the trust or he belonged to the sect for which this trust was created, or had any other interest in the trust property, but he has not said a single word in this respect. Even Jassu Bharti who is alive, has not entered in the witness-box to say that he has some interest in this alleged trust. Consequently, there is no way out except to hold that out of the three plaintiffs, who have filed this suit, two have not proved their interest in the trust property, and only Mansukhram has some interest. But according to sec. 92 C. P. C. , at least two plaintiffs bringing the suit must have such an interest; and when it is not the case, the suit is not maintainable by them. " We cannot say that the finding of the learned trial Judge on the point is not correct. We have examined the evidence on record and we find, that there is no evidence to show that Sitaram or Jassu Bharti had any interest in the trust. The requirement of law under sec. 92 C. P. C. is that "the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate General," should come forward to file a suit under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the Advocate General does not come forward, then the two or more other persons who come as plaintiffs must be having interest in trust and must obtain the consent of the Advocate General. There is no doubt that such consent in writing had been obtained by the plaintiffs. Even after such consent the plaintiffs must prove that they or at least two of them had such interest in the trust as would entitle them to file a suit under sec. 92 C. P. C. The evidence on record shows that only Plaintiff No. 1 - Mansukhram had such interest. There is no evidence on record to show that the two other plaintiffs or any of them had such interest as entitled them to maintain the suit. There is no doubt that the word 'direct' before the word interest' in sec. 539 in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 has been omitted, yet it is necessary that the plaintiffs who file a suit under sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure must show some sort of interest which would entitle them to file a suit. Such interest must be "existing and real interest, and not sentimental and contingent one. " (Ramchandra Aiyar vs. Parameswaran (1 ). The only circumstance that we have on record is that the other two plaintiffs were also Hindus. But this is not sufficient. In the case of a Hindu temple, their Lordships of the Privy Council in Vaidyanath Ayyar vs. Swaminatha Ayyar (2) observed as follows : - ". . . . . that the bare possibility, however remote, that a Hindu might desire to resort to a particular temple gives him an interest in the trust appears to defeat the object with which the legislature inserted these words in the section - 'that object was to prevent people interfering by virtue of the section (sec. 92) in the administration of charitable trusts, merely in the interests of others without any real interest of their own. " Shri Mukherjea in the learned Treatise on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust (2nd Ed. 1962), pages 418-419 accepted the view expressed by Venkatasubba Rao, J. in (Kasturi) Narasimha Suryanarayana vs. Achuthana Lakshminarasimhan (3) that the interest must be real and not remote, must be substantial and not illusory and it must be an existing interest and not a contingent one. ' In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has taken a wrong view of law in dismissing the plaintiff's suit on this ground. The plaintiff Mansukhram says that he is keen to protect the trust property from being dissipated by the defendant who has started claiming that property to be his own. If this is the case, then it is for him to make representation to the Advocate General, or for the Advocate General to take action suo motu. The suit as filed in this case unfortunately does not conform to the provisions of sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has been rightly dismissed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. . ;