Family Deity Trustee Dispute: Karnataka HC Upholds Decree, Says Section 92 CPC Does Not Apply To Private Trust

In brief

The question

Whether the suit required prior permission or sanction under Section 92 CPC because it concerned property claimed to belong to a charitable or religious institution.

The court held

The High Court answered the Section 92 CPC contention against the appellants and held that the appeal raised no substantial question of law.

It also directed

It dismissed the regular second appeal at the admission stage and disposed of the interlocutory applications accordingly.

01Facts

The dispute concerned the management of the Pathumudi family deity, Sri Venkatramana Devaru, and its endowed properties.

pp. 13–16, 103–05

A 1953 compromise decree provided for management by the senior-most member of the senior-most family branch and prohibited alienation or encumbrance of the deity’s properties.

pp. 13–16

In a suit instituted in 1994, the plaintiff alleged mismanagement and sought, among other reliefs, removal of the trustee, a declaration concerning succession, a management scheme, and accounts.

pp. 13–16

The trial court partly decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and cross-objection while confirming the decree, subject to additional directions concerning the interim receiver.

pp. 13–16

Defendants 6 to 13 appealed under Section 100 CPC, principally contending that prior sanction under Section 92 CPC was required.

pp. 13–16, 103–05

02Issues

i.Whether the suit required prior permission or sanction under Section 92 CPC because it concerned property claimed to belong to a charitable or religious institution.

p. 103

ii.Whether the appellants’ claim that they had been denied an opportunity to defend the suit raised a substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

pp. 105–07

iii.Whether the appeal otherwise raised a substantial question of law justifying interference with the concurrent judgments.

pp. 107–09

03Law Applied

Section 92 CPC applies to suits concerning trusts created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; a family or private trust does not attract that provision merely because its subject matter is religious.

pp. 103–05

The public character of a trust depends, among other things, on whether its beneficiaries comprise the public at large or a fluctuating body of individuals.

pp. 103–05

In a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court’s interference is confined to cases raising a substantial question of law.

pp. 107–09

Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100 Section 15 Section 16 Section 20 Section 92

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 113 Section 10 Section 22

Indian Trust Act, 1882 Section 3 Section 15 Section 19 Section 23 Section 35 Section 46 Section 47 Section 51

04Reasoning

The Court found no pleading or evidence that the family deity’s beneficiaries or the endowed properties served the public at large or a fluctuating body of persons.

pp. 103–05

The trust was instead a private family arrangement; Section 92 CPC therefore did not apply, and the appellants’ sanction objection failed.

pp. 103–05

The Court also rejected the asserted denial of an opportunity to defend: the appellants had not filed written statements or adduced evidence before the trial court, and had not sought permission to do so before the first appellate court.

pp. 105–07

The remaining contentions did not disclose a substantial question of law, and the first appellate court’s directions concerning the receiver and execution did not warrant interference.

pp. 107–09