Pentakota Reeramulu Naidu vs Gudijala Sathin Yu and others

Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.—In this appeal the short point for determination is as to whether the view taken by both the lower Courts that the

suit is unsustainable for want of sanction under S. 92, C.P.C. is correct. The plaintiff claimed to be a co-trustee with the first defendant in respect

of the construction of a mat am for the benefit of the public in the following circumstances mentioned in the plaint. The first defendant and one

Sivakoti Appalacharyulu purchased in 1936 a carpenter service in am land with a view to convert the same into house sites. The plaintiff alleges

that they sought his financial assistance for working the whole scheme and he gave such assistance and that on 17-3-1937 under an agreement

executed by Appalacharyulu and the first defendant in favor of the plaintiff, they declared their intention of getting a temple or a place of religious

worship constructed for the benefit of the public of the colony of Mandavaripeta and a country for the benefit of the general public and that the

funds required for the construction of the country and the temple were to come out of the commission on the sale proceeds of the sites. The

plaintiff alleges further that the buildings were left incomplete and that the first defendant had certain monies of the trust with him, which he was

liable to account to the plaintiff on behalf of the trust. The prayers in the plaint are for a declaration that the first defendant was a co-trustee with the

plaintiff but not the beneficial owner for the purpose of carrying out the trust of constructing and maintaining the mat am, for a mandatory injunction

directing the first defendant to complete the construction of the mat am and deposit a sum of Rs. 800 representing the half share of the ""Dharma

set apart for the mat am and the amount kept by the late Appalacharyulu with the first defendant and directing him to contribute the half share of

the amount required for the acquisition of another property, and, in general, for accounts of all monies collected by the first defendant.

The trial Court held that the allegations in the plaint undoubtedly showed that the plaintiff was seeking the direction of the Court in regard to the

administration of the trust and the suit was not one by a trustee who was trying to assert or vindicate his own rights against his other co-trustees but

a suit brought for the purpose of securing a better management of the trust and that therefore sanction was absolutely necessary under S. 92

C.P.C. The learned District judge, in appeal, while confirming the finding of the trial Court, observed that the prayers in the plaint might be stated

to come under Cls. (d) and (e) of S. 92 and therefore the suit was not main trainable in law without complying with the formalities required under

the section. The learned Judge further observed that this was not a case of a trustee asking his co-trustee to account for the monies received by

him but for a regular administration of the trust and for a declaration that the plaintiff was a co-trustee.

From the plaint it will be seen that the suit is one by a person who claims to be a trustee along with the first defendant for the carrying out of the

trust and constructing and main tainting a mat am and the relief''s are mainly for an account from the co-trustee and also for certain other directions

to be completed within the performance of the trust. The view taken by the Full Bench in Janakibai v. Thiruchitrambala Vinayakar 58 Mad.

988=42 L.W. 304 (F.B.). That the question whether a suit falls within S. 92, C.P.C. depends, not upon the character in which the plaintiff sues.

But upon the nature of the relief''s sought, has been differed from in the later.

Full Bench decision in Thirumalai Tirupai Devastanams Committee v. Krishna I.L.R (1943) Mad. 819=(1943). In the later Full Bench case,

which was a suit by the general trustees of a public temple against the trustees of certain offerings in cash and kind praying for a decree directing

accounts and inquiries and for the recovery of such offerings or their value to be ascertained on such accounts being taken, it was held that the

trustees of the temple had the right of recovering from the trustees of the fund monies and offerings which the latter had collected on behalf of the

temple and this right was entirely independent of S. 92, C.P.C. that the trustees of the fund were in law bound to deliver to the trustees of the

temple the monies and offerings in kind. And in such a case, the trustees of the temple did not seek to contest the manner of collection or the duties

of the trustees of the fund which were peculiarly theirs, but were merely seeking to get from the latter what they held on behalf of the former. The

learned Judges disagreed with the view taken in Janakibai v. Thiruchitramhala Vinayakar M.L.J. 888-56 L.W. 260 (F.B.). Observing that in

deciding whether a suit falls within S. 92, the Court must go beyond the relief''s and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and

to the purpose for which the suit is brought. There is no doubt in the present case that the capacity in which the plaintiff seeks for the relief''s is as a

trustee seeking to recover monies and asking for an account from his co-trustees who is in possession of monies belonging to the trust. He is not

seeking to sue on behalf of the public or trying to enforce any right in a representative character, but only in his individual capacity as a trustee and

such a suit does not require the sanction of the Advocate General under S. 92 notwithstanding that some of the relief''s are those enumerated in S.

92, as for instance, the relief relating to accounts. The prayer for declaration that the first defendant is a co-trustee with him presupposes his right to

be a trustee, and the fact that in the written statement the plaintiff''s claim to be a trustee is denied is no ground for holding that the suit is one which

comes within the scope of S. 92, C.P.C. I am therefore unable to agree with the view taken by the lower Courts that this suit is not maintainable

for want of sanction under S. 92 of the Code. The appeal is allowed and the suit is remanded for disposal according to law. Costs of this appeal

will abide the result of the suit. Refund Court-fee. No leave.