When Can S.92 CPC Suit Be Maintained Against Registered Society As 'Constructive Trust'? Supreme Court Explains Principles

In a recent judgment (Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra and others), the Supreme Court summarised the principles related to Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and explained the circumstances when a registered society can be construed as a 'constructive trust' so as to maintain a suit under S.92 against it.The judgment, delivered by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, summarised, the conclusions as follows :i. A suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest. Obtaining a 'grant of leave' from the court before the suit can be proceeded with, acts as a procedural and legislative safeguard in order to prevent public trusts from being subjected to undue harassment through frivolous suits being filed against them and also to obviate a situation that would cause a further wastage of resources which can otherwise be put towards public charitable or religious aims. However, at the stage of grant of leave, the court neither adjudicates upon the merits of the dispute nor confers any substantive rights upon the parties.ii. Several decisions of this Court have outlined certain conditions or essential pre-requisites that need to be fulfilled for a suit to be maintainable under this provision. This Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust & Ors (2020) 4 SCC 321 delineated them as follows – (a) the trust in question must be created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; (b) there must exist a breach of trust or a direction of the court must be necessary for the administration of the trust; and (c) the relief claimed must be one or other of the reliefs as enumerated under Section 92(1) of the CPC. In order to successfully establish that a suit is not maintainable under Section 92, it would be sufficient to prove that any one of the conditions enumerated above has not been met, however, in order to assert its maintainability, all the aforesaid conditions need to be satisfied.iii. A trust can be said to have been created for a 'public purpose' when the beneficiaries are the general public who are incapable of exact ascertainment. Even if the beneficiaries are not necessarily the public at large, they must at least be a classified section of it and not a pre-ascertained group of specific individuals.iv. A crucial condition that needs satisfaction is whether the institution/organisation in relation to which certain reliefs are sought can in fact be considered to be a 'trust' or a 'constructive trust'.v. When no formal recognition has been given to the institution, the creation of a public trust can be inferred from the relevant circumstances surrounding the coming into existence of and functioning of the institution/entity in question. Although it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of the same, yet they may include – (a) the method of devolution of the property to the institution or its acquisition and the circumstances along with the intention behind the grant of property i.e. whether it was for the benefit of the organization/public beneficiaries or for the personal benefit of any particular individual/family; (b) whether the grant is accompanied with any fetter/obligation or qualified with a condition, either express or implied, regarding its use by the grantee; (c) whether the 'dedication' was complete i.e., whether there was an absolute cessation or complete relinquishment of ownership of the property on the part of the grantor and a subsequent vesting of the property in another individual (trustee) for the said object; (d) whether the public user or an unascertained class of individuals could exercise any 'right' over the organization and its properties; (e) the manner of use of the profits accrued, more particularly, whether it is applied/re-applied towards the benefit of the organization and its objectives, etc.vi. If the aforementioned circumstances exist and the entity has been, much later in time, registered as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it would still be treated as a 'public trust' as per the dictum of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kesava Panicker v. Damodara Panicker and others 1974 SCC OnLine Ker 58 wherein it was observed that the mere factum of registration of a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, after it attained the characteristics of a public trust, could not change the character of the properties which had already been constituted as trust properties.viii. However, if the institution has been registered, from its inception, as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is true that whenever a society acquires property, it cannot be said that it declares itself a trustee in respect of said property. In other words, the effect of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would not be to automatically invest the properties of the society...

When Can S.92 CPC Suit Be Maintained Against Registered Society As 'Constructive Trust'? Supreme Court Explains Principles

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

When Can S.92 CPC Suit Be Maintained Against Registered Society As 'Constructive Trust'? Supreme Court Explains Principles

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers