RAOJI Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIYOGI , A.J.C. 1. The facts of this case are as follows: There is an educational institution known as Shankarrao A.V. School at Karajgaon. It was managed by a committee of nine members including the plaintiffs and some of the defendants. On account of some disputes in 1925 the committee resolved to get the institution registered. On 16th May 1927 a public meeting was called to consider the state of affairs relating to the school. It was there settled to add nine members to the managing committee and it was resolved that the enlarged managing committee should meet on 18th May 1927 to consider the proposal of registering the school. The enlarged committee undertook the management of the institution and were engaged in framing rules and regulations, and intended to take steps to get them confirmed by the public. While their work was in progress, it is alleged, printed notices over the signature of Mt. Aloka Bai were circulated on 10th June 1927 intimating that the school was registered under the Societies Registration Act (21 of 1860). The suit has been filed for obtaining the following reliefs:

(2.) ON an objection being raised by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable without the sanction of the Collector as required by Section 92, Civil P.C., both the Courts below upheld the objection and dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs have now come up in revision.

(3.) IT also specifies the nature of the particular reliefs. It is evident that the conditions requisite for a suit contemplated in Section 92, Civil P.C., are firstly that there should be an allegation of a breach of a public trust; secondly, the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of such trust. In the present case it is not denied that the trust is of a public nature. What has to be decided is whether the plaintiffs sue in their capacity as representatives of the public and do so directly for the benefit of the public or for the establishment of their individual rights. It is also to be seen whether the allegations made in the plaint are such as could be interpreted as complaining of a breach of trust, and, whether the reliefs claimed fall within the category of the expression where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust.