Grant of Leave Under Section 92 CPC Only Requires Prima Facie Evidence of Public Trust Without Adjudicating Rights

The appellants sought leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. to institute a suit against the respondents, alleging that the Shanti Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj Mandir is a public temple established for over a hundred years.

They contended that the original defendant, Sushil Maheshwari (residing in Chennai), illegally recorded his name as Sarvarakar based on a forged Will of 1976 and intended to alienate temple properties.

The respondents argued the temple was a private family endowment and that no trust existed.

The Trial Court (ADJ, Etawah) rejected the application for leave on January 13, 2026, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of an express or implied trust.

1. Whether the Court, at the stage of granting leave under Section 92 C.P.C., is required to adjudicate the final rights of the parties or merely establish a prima facie case.

2. Whether the temple in question, being open to the public for worship, constitutes a constructive trust for public religious purposes.

The Court primarily applied Section 92 of the C.P.C., which governs suits related to public charities and requires the "leave of the court" to ensure a prima facie breach of an express or constructive trust.

It relied on Ambrish Kumar Singh v. Raja Abhushan Bran Bramhshah, which holds that granting leave does not adjudicate rights but only checks for a prima facie case.

The court further applied the doctrine of "constructive trust" as recognized in Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra and Janardan Dagdu Khomane v. Eknath Bhikhu Yadav, which establishes that such trusts arise by operation of law whenever a party receives property they cannot conscientiously withhold.

The High Court observed that the public nature of the temple was effectively admitted by both parties, as the respondent conceded the temple and pond are "always open for publicly worship and use by every person".

The Court found that while the respondent claimed the property belonged to the Maheshwari family, there was no documentary evidence of Sarvarakarship prior to Ram Swarup Maheshwari, despite the temple’s ancient existence.

Following the precedent in Ambrish Kumar Singh, the Court reasoned that the Trial Court erred by attempting to determine if a trust was fully established at the preliminary stage.

Since the temple serves the public at large, a "constructive trust" arises by operation of law regardless of the parties' specific intentions to create one.

Therefore, the allegations of mismanagement and the public nature of the deity were sufficient to meet the prima facie threshold for granting leave.

The Court set aside the Trial Court's order dated January 13, 2026, and allowed the application for leave to file the original suit under Section 92 C.P.C. The appeal was allowed.