# MAHANT PRAGDASJI GURU BHAGW ANDASJI v. M11rcll 7. PATEL ISHW ARLALBHAI NARSIBHAI AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 513
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1952
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JuRisorcrroN : Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1951
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahant-pragdasji-guru-bhagw-andasji-v-m11rcll-7-patel-ishw-arlalbhai-narsibhai-44
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
513
MAHANT
PRAGDASJI GURU BHAGW ANDASJI
1952
v.
M11rcll 7.
PATEL ISHW ARLALBHAI NARSIBHAI
AND
OTHERS
[SAIYID FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and V1vIAN BosE JJ].
Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) s. 92-Religious trustAllegation of breach of trust not made out-Direction for administration of trust not sought-Decree declaring existence of public trust
-Whether legal and proper-Nature of suit under s. 92.
In a suit under sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging
that the defendant had been guilty of misconduct and
breach of
trust as
Mahant and praying, inter alia, that the temple and properties in suit be declared as a religious and charitable trust and
the defendant be removed
from the Gadi and a suitable successor appointed in his place, the District Judge and the High Court
held
concurrently that the
defendant was
not guilty of misconduct or breach of trust and dismissed the suit, but made a
declaration to the effect
that the temple and
properties in the
possession of defendant belonged to a public trust of a 1eligious
and charitable character :
Held, that a suit under sec. 92, Civil Procedure Code, is a
suit of a special character which presupposes the existence of a
public trust of a religious or charitable character and it can proceed only when there is a breach of such trust or directions from
the Court are necessary for the
administration thereof and it
must pray for one
or other of the reliefs
that are specifically
mentioned in the section; and therefore as the
Courts found
concurrently that
the allegations of breach
of trust
were not
made out and no direction of the Court for
proper administration of trust
was sought, the very foundation of a suit
under
sec. 92, Civil Procedure Code, became wanting
and the plaintiffs had no cause of action for their suit; and in the circumstances
the declaration of the
High
Court about
the existence of a
public trust was inconsequential and was no more than an obiter
dictum and such declaration must be deleted from the decree
dismissing the suit.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRisorcrroN :
Civil Appeal
No. 99 of 1951.
Appeal from a Judgment and Decree
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Stone C. J.
and Dixit J.) dated 14th July, 1947, in First Appeal
No. 128 of 1943 affirming a decree dated 14th October,
1942, of the Court of the District Judge of Kaira at
Nadiad in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1928.
'1952
· Mahant
Pragt!asii
Guru
Bhagwant!asji
v.
Patd
lshwarlalbhai
Narsibhai
and Others.
Mufther}ea /.
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
C.
K.
Daphtary
(N. C. Shah, with him) for the
appellant.
Rajani Patel for the respondent.
1952. March 7.
The judgment of
the Court was
delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal is
on
behalf
of
the
defendant and it arises out of a suit, under section 92
of
the
Civil
Procedure
Code,
commenced by the
plaintiffs who were originally nine in number in the
court of the District Judge of Kaira at Nadiad.
Out of
the nine plaintiffs, only one is surviving, and he is now
the sole respondent in this appeal, all the rest having
· died pending this
protected litigation, which began
as early as the year 1928.
The case of the
plaintiffs, in substance, was that
Qne Kuberdas, who was a religious teacher and a holy
man founded a cult known as Kaivalya or Karuna-
~agar Panth, the principal tenet of which is that the
realization of the Infinite is possible only through the
medium of a Guru or spiritual preceptor.
Kuberdas
· received money and lands from his followers and disciples and with this
fund
he built a temple at Sarsa.
Kuberdas by
will
appointed his
principal
disciple·
. Narayandas to succeed him on the Gadi and Narayandas built another and a
bigger temple
wherein he
installed an image of Kuberpas,
with the images of
two staff
bearers on two sides.
The
Mahants after
Narayandas were
Baldevdas,
Bhagwandas and
Pragdasji, who is the defendant in the suit and each one
of them was appointed
by
a will executed by his
predecessor.
The defendant, it is
alleged, had been
ac

## Text

-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
513
MAHANT
PRAGDASJI GURU BHAGW ANDASJI
1952
v.
M11rcll 7.
PATEL ISHW ARLALBHAI NARSIBHAI
AND
OTHERS
[SAIYID FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and V1vIAN BosE JJ].
Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) s. 92-Religious trustAllegation of breach of trust not made out-Direction for administration of trust not sought-Decree declaring existence of public trust
-Whether legal and proper-Nature of suit under s. 92.
In a suit under sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code alleging
that the defendant had been guilty of misconduct and
breach of
trust as
Mahant and praying, inter alia, that the temple and properties in suit be declared as a religious and charitable trust and
the defendant be removed
from the Gadi and a suitable successor appointed in his place, the District Judge and the High Court
held
concurrently that the
defendant was
not guilty of misconduct or breach of trust and dismissed the suit, but made a
declaration to the effect
that the temple and
properties in the
possession of defendant belonged to a public trust of a 1eligious
and charitable character :
Held, that a suit under sec. 92, Civil Procedure Code, is a
suit of a special character which presupposes the existence of a
public trust of a religious or charitable character and it can proceed only when there is a breach of such trust or directions from
the Court are necessary for the
administration thereof and it
must pray for one
or other of the reliefs
that are specifically
mentioned in the section; and therefore as the
Courts found
concurrently that
the allegations of breach
of trust
were not
made out and no direction of the Court for
proper administration of trust
was sought, the very foundation of a suit
under
sec. 92, Civil Procedure Code, became wanting
and the plaintiffs had no cause of action for their suit; and in the circumstances
the declaration of the
High
Court about
the existence of a
public trust was inconsequential and was no more than an obiter
dictum and such declaration must be deleted from the decree
dismissing the suit.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JuRisorcrroN :
Civil Appeal
No. 99 of 1951.
Appeal from a Judgment and Decree
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Stone C. J.
and Dixit J.) dated 14th July, 1947, in First Appeal
No. 128 of 1943 affirming a decree dated 14th October,
1942, of the Court of the District Judge of Kaira at
Nadiad in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1928.
'1952
· Mahant
Pragt!asii
Guru
Bhagwant!asji
v.
Patd
lshwarlalbhai
Narsibhai
and Others.
Mufther}ea /.
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
C.
K.
Daphtary
(N. C. Shah, with him) for the
appellant.
Rajani Patel for the respondent.
1952. March 7.
The judgment of
the Court was
delivered by
MuKHERJEA J.-This appeal is
on
behalf
of
the
defendant and it arises out of a suit, under section 92
of
the
Civil
Procedure
Code,
commenced by the
plaintiffs who were originally nine in number in the
court of the District Judge of Kaira at Nadiad.
Out of
the nine plaintiffs, only one is surviving, and he is now
the sole respondent in this appeal, all the rest having
· died pending this
protected litigation, which began
as early as the year 1928.
The case of the
plaintiffs, in substance, was that
Qne Kuberdas, who was a religious teacher and a holy
man founded a cult known as Kaivalya or Karuna-
~agar Panth, the principal tenet of which is that the
realization of the Infinite is possible only through the
medium of a Guru or spiritual preceptor.
Kuberdas
· received money and lands from his followers and disciples and with this
fund
he built a temple at Sarsa.
Kuberdas by
will
appointed his
principal
disciple·
. Narayandas to succeed him on the Gadi and Narayandas built another and a
bigger temple
wherein he
installed an image of Kuberpas,
with the images of
two staff
bearers on two sides.
The
Mahants after
Narayandas were
Baldevdas,
Bhagwandas and
Pragdasji, who is the defendant in the suit and each one
of them was appointed
by
a will executed by his
predecessor.
The defendant, it is
alleged, had been
acting in a manner contrary to the usages of the institution and was
guilty
of incontinence,
mismanagement and improper alienation of trust properties.
On
these allegations the plaintiffs prayed that :
( 1) the properties described in the schedule
to the
plaint as well as other
properties under the manage-
. ment of the defendant be declared to be religious and
charitable trust properties of the Kaivalya or Karunasagar Panth ;
-
•.
>
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
515
(2) the defendant be removed
from the
Gadi and
possession of
the
properties and a suitable successor
appointed in his place;
(3) the defendant be called upon to render accounts
for the period of his management; and
( 4) a scheme might be framed for proper management of the institution.
The defendant 'in his written statement traversed all
the material allegations m the plaint and contended
inter alia ,that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch
•s no public trust of a religious and charitable character existed m respect
to the suit
properties which
were the private properties of the defendant himself.
On these pleadings, a number of issues were framed
by the District Judge,
of
which the two following
were tried as preliminary issues, vzz.,
(1) Whether the temple and the properties in suit
-.re public charitable properties? and
(2) if not, whether this court has jurisdiction
to
try the suit?
By his judgment dated the 18th of July, 1935, the
District
Judge
decided both these issues against the
plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.
Against this decision the plaintiffs took an appeal to the High Court of
Bombay. The learned Judges of the High Court,
who heard the appeal, took!
the view
that the
-0wnership of the suit properties was so restricted by
the obligation to maintain the institution for purposes
·which only could be described
as public charitable
purposes, that the suit must be regarded as one coming
within section 92, Civil Procedure Code. The result
was that the judgment of the trial court was reversed
. <Uld the case was remanded to that court in order that
it might be heard and disposed of on its merits.
The ·
judgment of the High Court is dated 24th of January,
1938.
Being aggrieved by this order, the defendant prayed
· for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee, but this
application was refused. He thereupon filed a petition
before the Privy Council, praying for special leave.
1952
Mahant
Pr11gdflsji
Guru
Bhazwcmdasji
v.
Patel
Ishwnrlalbhai
Narsibhai
and Others.
Muk.herieR /.
1952
Mahanl
Pragdas;i
Guru
Bhagwandasii
v.
Patel
lshwarlalbhai
Narsibhai
•nd Others.
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
The Privy Council also refused to grant leave on the
ground that the matter was still then in an interlocutory stage. They, however, said specificaJ.ly that the
order of refusal was without prejudice to the presentation of a fresh petition after all the issues were
determined. The case then went back to the trial
court and on the evidence adduced by the parties, the
District Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations of misconduct and breach oE trust made by the
plaintiffs were not proved and in this view he dismissed the suit,
subject to the declaration already given
by the High Court that the temple and the properties
in possession of the defendant were public, religious
and charitable
properties.
The plaintiffs filed
an
app~al against this decision to the High Court of
Bombay and the High Court by its judgment dated
14th of July, 1947, affirmed the decision of the District
Judge and dismissed the appeal.
The defendant has now come up to this court on the
strength of a certificate granted by the High Court;
and though formally it is an appeal against the final
decree made by the
High Court on 14th of July, 1947;.
in substance it challenges the propriety of the order
of remand passed on 24th January, 1938, by which the
High Court reversed the decree of dismissal made by
the District Judge and remanded the case, being of
opinion th:it the properties in dispute did appertain tO>
a public trust of a religious and charitable character_
Mr. Daphtary appearing in support of the appear
has contended before us that on the question as to
whether or not a public trust existed in respect of the
properties in suit, the view taken by the trial judge
was right and that the decision of the High Court is
based upon a misappreciation of the evidence on the
record.
We have been taken through the entire evidence by
the learned counsel on both sides; but having regard
to the view which we propose to take in this case we
. deem it unnecessary to record any finding as to
whether the properties in suit do or do not appertain
to a public charitable trust.
In our opinion, after the
-
-
.•
..
..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
517
decision arrived at concurrently, by both the courts
below on the merits of the case, it was beyond the
scope of a suit framed under section 92,
Civil Procedure Code, to give the plaintiffs a bare declaration of
this character and make it a part of tl1e decree, although the suit itself was dismissed.
A suit under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, is a
suit of a special nature which presupposes the existence of a public trust
of a religious or charitable
character. Such suit can proceed only on the allegation
that there is a breach of such ·trust or that directions
from the court are necessary for the
administration
thereof, and it must pray for one or other of the reliefs
that are specifically mentioned in the section. It is
only when these conditions are fulfilled that the suit
has got to be brought in confirmity with the provision
of section 92, Civil Procedure Code.
As was observed
by the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim v. Barkftt Ali(1), a
suit for declaration that certain property appertains
to a religious trust may lie under the general law but
is outside the scope of section 92, Civil Procedure
Code. In the case before us, the prayers made in the
plaint are undoubtedly appropriate to the terms of
section 92 and the suit proceeded on the footing that
the defendant, who was alleged to be the trustee in
respect of a public trust, was guilty of breach of trust.
The defendant denied the existence of the trust and
denied
further that he was guilty of misconduct or
breach of trust.
The denial could not certainly oust
the jurisdiction of the court, but when the courts found
concurrently, on the evidence adduced by
the parties,
that the allegations of breach of trust were not made
out, and as it was not the case of the plaintiffs, that any
direcion of the court was necessary for proper administration of the trust, the very ,foundation of a suit under
section 92, Civil Procedure Code, became wanting and
the plaintiffs had absolutely no cause of action for the
suit they instituted.
In these circumstances, the finding of the High Court about the existence of a public
trust
was
wholly
inconsequential
and as
it was
(I) (1928)55 IA.96
195Z
Mahant
Pragdasji
Guru
Bhagwandasii:
v.
Patel
lshwarlalbhai
Narsibhai
and Others.
Mukherjea l~
1952
Mahant
Pragdasji
Guru
iBhagwanda1ji
v.
Patel
lshwarlalhhai
Nar1ibhai
and Other1.
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
unconnected with the grounds upon which the case was
actually disposed of, it could not be made a part of the
decree or the final order in the shape of a declaratory
relief in favour of the plaintiffs. It has been
argued
by the learned counsel for the respondents that even
if the plaintiffs
failed to prove the other allegations
made in the plaint, they did succeed in proving that
the properties were public and charitable trust
properties-a fact which the defendant denied. In these
circumstances, there was nothing wrong for the court
to give the plaintiffs a lesser relief than what they
actually claimed. The reply to this is, that in a suit
framed under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code
the only reliefs which the plaintiff can· claim and the
court can grant are those enumerated specifically in
the different clauses of the section. A relief praying for
a declaration thait the properties in suit are trust properties does · not come under any of these clauses.
When the defendant denies the existence of a trust, a
declaration that the trust does exist might be made as
ancillary to the main relief claimed under the section
if the plaintiff is held entitled to it; but when .the case
of the plaintiff fails for want of a cause of action, there
is no warrant for giving him a declaratory relief under
the provision of section 92, Civil Procedure Code.
The
finding as to the existence of a public trust in such
circumstances would be no more than an obiter dictum
and cannot constitute the final decision in the suit.
The result is that in our opinion the decision of the
High Court should stand, but the decree and the concluding portion of the judgment passed by the trial
court and affirmed by the High Court on appeal shall
direct a dismissal of the plaintiff's suit merely without
its being made subject to any declaration as to the
character of the properties. To this extent the appeal
is allowed and .the final decree modified. The order for
costs made by the courts below will stand. Each party
will bear his own costs in this appeal.
Appeal allowed.
Agent for the appellants: Ganpat Rai.
Agent for the respondents: K. f. Kale.
.,
•