Trustees’ Expulsion Challenge Is An Individual-Rights Suit, Not A Section 92 Case: Karnataka HC

The respondents instituted a suit challenging the cancellation of a lease deed and amendments to a trust deed that removed the petitioners from the trust and appointed other trustees.

They sought declarations that the cancellation and amendments were invalid and not binding on them, along with a permanent injunction.

The trial court granted leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioners challenged that order in revision, contending that the suit concerned their individual rights and did not satisfy Section 92’s requirements

Section 92 CPC applies to suits concerning an alleged breach of an express or constructive trust created for a public charitable or religious purpose, or where directions are necessary for the administration of such a trust; the suit must be representative in character and seek relief within the scope of Section 92(1).

The provision does not extend to every dispute involving a trust or trust property, and its residual relief clause cannot be read independently of the reliefs specified in the section.

In Swami Parmatmanand Saraswath v. Ramji Tripathi, (1974) 2 SCC 695, the Supreme Court held that proceedings asserting an individual’s personal rights do not fall within Section 92 merely because they relate to a public trust; Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad, (2008) 4 SCC 115, requires the court to examine the suit’s real object rather than its form.

The Court found that the plaintiffs sought to invalidate the trust-deed amendments because those amendments allegedly deprived them of their own positions in the trust.

They did not seek the removal of trustees or appointment of trustees by the court for the proper administration of the trust; the possible consequences of granting their declarations could not convert the claims into the specific representative reliefs contemplated by Section 92.

Likewise, the challenge to the lease deed did not, by itself, bring the suit within Section 92.

The validity of the amendments, the plaintiffs’ removal, and the lease deed’s validity were merits questions; for the leave application, the relevant inquiry was the nature of the rights asserted and the relief sought.

It set aside the trial court’s order granting leave and allowed the civil revision petition, leaving the merits of the parties’ dispute open for determination in appropriate proceedings.