Section 92 CPC Broadly Worded, Allows Inquiry Into Trust Property Alienation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is “very widely worded”, empowering courts to grant such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.The Court further remarked that Section 92(1)(h) is broad and allows “further or other relief” necessary for trust administration, including examining alienation of trust property. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded… the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised qua the alienation… has to be decided after evidence is led and at this stage even otherwise cannot be done.”The plaintiffs filed a civil suit contending that Jathia Devi Temple had been constructed by Ex-Ruler (Raja Sahib) of Keonthal State, prior to 1871 AD. They submitted that the temple belonged to the local deity as the Raja had also granted remission of land revenue, in favour of deity. Arjun, who was the predecessor of defendants 1–22 was appointed as Pujari and authorized to arrange and manage the daily puja archana and he was supposed to deposit the temple's income in the deity's account. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conducted breach of trust as they mismanaged temple land, and illegally sold portions of it.Also the plaintiffs challenged revenue entires which showed defendants 1–22 as owners and sought cancellation of a sale deed through which temple land was sold to Mohinder Lal who was the father of defendants 23 and 24.The plaintiffs had also sought permission to file suit, under the provisions of Section 92 of the CPC, which was given to them. In response, the defendants contended that the suit was vexatious as permission under Section 92 was wrongly granted as there was no 'trust' nor they are 'trustee'.The Court remarked that there was nothing on record to show that the suit was vexatious and meritless and being the beneficiaries of temple the plaintiffs had the right to file the suit. Thus, the Court stated that the fraud “goes to the root” of the matter and cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage and whether the alienation was valid or not had to be examined through evidence.Case Name: Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others Case No.: FAO (OS) No.01 of 2024Date of Decision: 28.11.2025For the appellant: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thakur AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Section 92 CPC Broadly Worded, Allows Inquiry Into Trust Property Alienation: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mehak Aggarwal

Tags