 Good afternoon, everyone. And today's session is being taken by Justice A. Hari Prashat, former judge of Kerala High Court, and who has been recently designated as a senior advocate by the Supreme Court of India. And those who have been connected with Beyond Law series, CLC series, would know that Justice Hari Prashat has been taking his deep dive insights on a particular topic. And when we connected with Justice Hari Prashat for this session, he said that why not let's take a topic on characteristics of the suit under section 92 of CPC. At the first brush, a thought came in my mind that we should change the title. But then I thought, let's keep characteristic itself because that immediately since we have done a lot of sessions with Justice Hari Prashat, where sessions title is characteristics. I thought that certain reflection in the mind of a lawyer or a man who's thinking as a lawyer or a student of law would feel that once it is a characteristic, it has some connotation with Justice Hari Prashat sessions. And characteristics of a, in different sessions, we have taken it as such. And today's session on characteristics of suits under section 92 of CPC is the session which we are going to take today. And we know that down south, there are courts that have reopened and in fact, in a lot of places, except barring in Delhi and Java and Icote. So we also understand that a lot of people are still jostling in the courtrooms and they can watch such like sessions subsequently at a given point of time when they are free and at leisure to understand the pearls of wisdom being shared by the speakers of immense knowledge like Justice Hari Prashat. And I would request sir to share his knowledge. Go to you sir. Thank you dear Ghas, very good evening to all of you. Today's session, the characteristics of suits under section 92 is an important aspect for as far as a trial lawyer is concerned. Before dealing with the subject as such, I would like to tell you some introductory remarks regarding the right to file a suit. Now, in some of the sessions which I have taken for this Beyond Law series, first appeal in the civil appeals, first appeals I have taken a session where I have highlighted the difference between right to suit, right to file a suit and right to file an appeal. Now, as you are aware, right to file a suit is a common law right. It's a natural right. No statute provides, not even CPC provides that every person has a right to file a suit. Section 9 speaks in a different tone. So, right to file a suit or I'll put it the other way, right for an original action. Let it be a suit or let it be a repetition or let it be any original action is a common law right, generally speaking. Of course, there are certain exceptions but I'm only in general terms I'm telling you. But in so far as appeals are concerned, normally appeals are statutory rights. Right to file an appeal is a statutory right as in the case of an original action. No litigant can, as a matter of right, barge into a courtroom for filing an appeal. So that is the essential difference between original action or here in our context, right to file a suit and a right to file an appeal. So that is if that principle is kept in our mind, now we will go to the other aspects. Before going to section 92, I think we will refresh our mind regarding section nine of the Code of Civil Procedure which says the court shall subject to the provisions here it contain that is important. The court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature accepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. So the wording which is put in the parenthesis clause in the bracket subject to the provisions here it contain. So the court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature accepting the suits which their cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred subject to the provisions here it contain. So this is section nine. Section nine as such does not confer a right on individual to file a suit but then it recognizes the existing right of a person to file a suit subject to the provisions in the CPC. Now, for example, subject to the provisions in the CPC can be seen from the CPC itself because if you go to section 80 CPC, 80, you will find that suits against government can be filed only after issuing a notice as prescribed in subsection, correct. In the section itself, yes, the main body of the section itself. Notice, two months notice, next before see suit can be instituted two months next after notice and writing has been delivered to the officer specified therein. So in subsection one itself it is mentioned. So you can't in the case of a suit against government you can't straight away file a suit if it requires no urgent relief. If there is an urgent relief then of course you can see the leave of the code to instituted but no interim orders will be given. So that is the rule in section 80. Then section 91, if you take section 91 CPC you will find suit against public noisances can be instituted only by two categories of persons. One is a look at general by himself or personally he can do that. Or the second category leave two or more persons with the leave of the code can instituted suit under section 91 to remove public noisances. So if you read section nine one thing is clear there is a right to file a suit there is a recognition of right to file a suit subject to the restrictions imposed by the CPC itself. Now if we understand that in the correct perspective then comes the specialty of section 92 suit. Now before going to 92 once again I may digress a bit and I'll take you to the heading of the section first. Section 92 says public charities. Now public charities is an expression not defined neither in the CPC nor in any even you can't define the definition in any of these statutes unless some provisions are there in the IT Act probably this charitable trust and some other expressions are there but the word public charity is a general expression. For the purpose of section 92 CPC public charity means charitable or religious trust. It can be an express trust or a constructive trust that I shall explain later when we dissect the section I'll explain. So any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature according to CPC will fall within the scope of section 92 CPC. So that is the principle to be understood. Then you are aware Indian trust act 1882 which came into existence along with the transfer of property and his men's act same year. 1882 intent trust act applies only for private trust. It doesn't apply to public trust or public charities. In India except some state enactments like in the erstwhile Madras province you will find HR and CE act two religious and charitable and no men's act. Original act was prior to independence and it was reenacted in 55. There are so many enactments pertaining to administration of temples or muts but there is no codified law as such for the general administration of other charitable trust of other nature, not religious trust. Likewise state enactments were prevalent in Trivancore state also in earlier part B states Kerala. We have Cochin state and Trivancore state and British Malabar. These are the three components of present Kerala state which were in existence prior to our independence. So there are some, what I'm trying to tell you is that there are some local laws relating to either religious trust or charitable trust but there is no pan India law governing charitable trust. So what is the law then applicable to this public charity or charitable trust? In England they follow these principles called equity, justice, equity and good conscience. Justice, equity, good conscience principles are followed in the matter of administration of public charities. Here also we follow the same thing because in the absence of a codified law, central law, we follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience for understanding the administration or the nuances relating to public charities. So in this background, I think we will go to section 92 and analyze the provisions. I shall just read one portion of section 92 before splitting the statute, I mean, statute of conclusion. Section 92 says like this, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious teacher or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the advocate general or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the court may institute a suit whether contentious or not in the principle civil court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered in that behalf by the state government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situated to obtain a decree. So then what are the decrees that can be claimed in a suit? I have been mentioned in clauses A to H in section one of section 92 that we will see later. So this body of this substantive part of section 92 says there are certain prerequisites for instituting a suit under section 92 in respect of public charities. Let us dissect the section now. The section applies when there is a breach of any express or constructive trust. Express trust means trust created by a document or the terms of which can be discerned from a particular document or from a course of conduct. Whatever it is, everyone knows how the trust functions. That is an express trust. There can be constructive trust also because there may not be a written document for that but then custom usage, so many things, mainly in religious matters, constructive trust can be inferred. So whether it be an express trust or a constructive trust, section 92 may attract, provided other situations are satisfied. What are the other situations too? The trust must be for public purpose. That is very important. If it is for the benefit of a family or a group of named persons, then section 92 doesn't apply. It applies if it applies, the section 92 will come into play only when it applies to the general public. Those who are interested to know the difference between public trust and private trust, please read Devaki Nandan. I think it is 1954 Supreme Court. I don't remember the page, Devaki Nandan. That's a larger image decision by the Supreme Court. Devaki Nandan is a classic decision which describes the distinctions between public trust and private trust. 54 Supreme Court, I don't remember the page. Please look into that. Those who are so interested in understanding the difference between a public trust and a private trust. Anyway, section 92 applies only to public trust, not to private trust. So the first condition is that when there is a breach of any express or constructive trust, a person can approach the court with a suit under section 92. Two, no, that alone is not sufficient. Two, the trust must be for public purpose. So the trust in which you elect a breach of trust must be existing for a public purpose. Then three, public purposes must be either charitable or religious nature. So these are the three essential things for filing the suit under section 92. I'll repeat, when there is a breach of any express or constructive trust, two, the trust must be for a public purpose. Three, public purpose must be either charitable or religious in nature. So when these three things are attracted, probably a person may institute a suit subject to the provisions in the, subject to the conditions in section 92. Of course, these three conditions by themselves may not permit him to do that because other things have to be complied with that we will see later. So this is the one important aspect. First thing to be established for filing a suit is there is a breach of any express or constructive trust and the trust is for a public purpose. And public purpose must be either charitable or religious in nature. Then the other part of the section says, the section applies in further some other cases. What are they? Where direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of a charitable or religious trust. So even if there is no breach of any express or constructive trust, a person can approach a court, principle civil court of original jurisdiction as provided in section 92. If a direction of the court is deemed necessary for administration of a charitable or religious trust. The classic example probably I may point out at this juncture is that, suppose a charitable trust is smoothly functioning, there is no dispute, there is no breach of trust, nothing, but then there is no codified rules or regulations for its administration. As you assume a situation, there is no complaint against the functioning of the trust, you don't have a certainty as to certain aspects or the deteriorities of the administration, there is no certainty by forming a rules or regulations. Then in such an event, probably the beneficiaries or the trustees themselves may approach the principle civil court of original jurisdiction for framing a scheme for the trust. So that option is also provided in section 92. So there need not be always a breach of trust. It can be otherwise also. So two aspects may broadly, one, when there is a breach of trust, breach of any express or constructive trust, the trust being one for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, suit can be filed. Or even if there is no breach of trust, where direction of the court is deemed necessary in a given situation. For the administration of a charitable or religious trust, then also a suit can be filed. So there are two situations I pointed out now. Now, then who can approach the court? Probably the next question, who can file a suit under section 92? Because I told you at the outset that a person agreed can approach a court without any, what you call restriction because everyone is at hand to get an original action initiated. But in the case of section 92 suit, no single individual or those who do not prescribe a particular qualification cannot file it. Who are they? Who can file a suit? It says advocate general can file a suit all by himself. He need not require any sanction or because he is a constitutional force to recognize. So advocate general, in case of any breach of trust or if he feels for valid reasons that direction of the court is deemed necessary for administration of a public charity, then he can file a suit by himself without seeking any leave. Then second category of persons who can file a suit under section 92 has also been mentioned in the section itself. Two or more persons having an interest in the trust can file a suit. But of course, this right also subject to other conditions. Two or more persons having an interest in the trust can file a suit provided they obtain the leave of the court. They cannot simply go and file two persons saying that, yes, I mean, we are interested in the trust. So there is a breach of trust. Please receive our suit. No, they should obtain leave of the court. That is that I'll explain later. So there are two categories of persons mentioned in section 92. One advocate general in his official capacity can file it. Two or more persons having an interest in the trust can file a suit subject to other conditions. The expression interest here, they can be beneficiaries. They can be having other interest in the trust. Or, see, their interest shall not be adverse to that of the trust. That is what is mentioned here as interest. Interest can be in many ways. Suppose it's a religious trust. Even a worshipper can file a suit under section 92 provided other conditions are satisfied. Or in the case of a public charity, existing for, I mean, constituted for helping the poor. He may not be a beneficiary, but then he can be a well-missured. If he shows that he has an interest in the continuance of the trust, he can file a suit. So interest is very elastic. Let's say, very wide expression, having interest in the trust. So who can approach the court? You will find two sets of persons. One advocate general in his official position and two or more persons having an interest in the trust, interest in the public charity, religious or charitable trust can file a suit. Then, as I told you earlier, they cannot simply file a suit saying that, yes, I have an interest. When two persons approach the court, they must satisfy the conscience of the court that they have an interest and there is a possibility of maladministration or misfeasance in the trust and they should be given leave to institute the suit. So it is their initial burden. Even before the suit being numbered, their initial burden is to convince the court that they have a cause of action against the defendants named in the suit and they are standing up for the trust and the defendants who are supposed to be in the administration, the defendants who are in administration of the trust are supposed to manage it in the proper way. They are not doing it and the plaintiffs are affected by that. If that is established before a principle civil court of original jurisdiction, then with the leave of the court, they can file. So it is, see, we have seen in section 80 CPC a notice, two months notice is required for filing a suit against government. But in urgent situations, court can dispense with the notice. But you will not get an urgent relief, that's all. In the case of section 92, such a provision is not there. Unless you obtain the leave of the court, you can't file a suit or two persons cannot file a suit is clear because there is no provision to dispense with the leave which is required for filing, which is a sign or not. Now, in one Kerala decision that was actually rendered by Hon. Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas while his lawsuit was serving as a judge of the Kerala High Court, which says, quoting some other High Court decision, saying that the leave mentioned in section 92 is a mandatory condition because only after obtaining the leave, you can file the suit or it is a condition precedent for filing the suit. You can't file the suit first and then obtain leave. No, that is not possible. You have to obtain leave first and then file the suit. Other way around is not possible. That is why it is called leave is sign or not for institution of the suit. I'll put it very clearly. Even in section 80, suppose a suit is filed against the government without sending notice, probably the court can allow you to send a notice and you can take back the complaint and after period of 60 days, you can institute the same complaint because institution takes place but probably you may not get a relief, urgent relief. But in the case of section 92 suit, even the institution does not take place because you are aware section 26 CPC says about the institution of the proceedings. Institution is defined in section 26, one second I'll take. Institution of suits, every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a complaint as may be prescribed. That is 26. But institution has defined in section 26, never takes place in the case of a section 92 suit if that is instituted without obtaining leave of the court. So I repeat, leave of the court is required essential for institution of a suit by two or more persons interested in the public charity and leave is a conditional precedent. It's a sign or not. So that is why I say that there are some specialties attached to the suit under section 92. Then the section itself says normally if you understand before going to section I'll just tell you some other principles. Normally we understand from section 15 to 20 CPC that where the suit can be filed is governed in those provisions. Place of suing that falls within section that heading in that heading. In the section 15 to 20 we usually apply every suit shall be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try that is section 50 where the subject matter is secured. So many prescriptions are there 15 to 20 CPC. But in section 92 clearly says that it shall be filed in the principle civil court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered in their behalf by the state government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is secured to obtain a degree. So essentially it can be filed in a principle civil court of original jurisdiction or in any other court as empowered by the state government in respective states. But the condition is that the subject matter the subject matter of the trust must be within the local limits of the court. So principle civil court of original jurisdiction is also defined in CPC you read section 4 sorry section 2 subsection 4 2 deals with definition subsection 4 district means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principle civil court of original jurisdiction wherein after calling the district court and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a high court. Because in normally it is not there except in earlier it was there in the chartered I court when chartered I courts were there. So district court what we understand is that the normal jurisdiction of the principle civil court is called a district in the CPC. So to put things in a simple way it is clear that the suit under section 92 has to be it has to be filed before a district court normally. But in Kerala there is a situation I don't know whether that is applicable to other states. There is a notification by the government of Kerala in the year 1968 which empowers the subordinate judges court also to entertain suits under section 92. That is in North India probably it is called as civil judge senior division. Here in Kerala we call it subordinate judges. Anyway his court is also now designated or delegated with the power in the section 92 in Kerala in other states also there may be some notification I don't know. So going by the section it is clear that a suit under section 92 can be filed only before the principle civil court of original jurisdiction which is the district court normally. Then I told you earlier that this is important the subject matter of the suit must be situated within the jurisdiction of the principle civil court then only it can be filed in a particular principle civil court. Wherever it can be either in full or part even one part in one district and the other part in the other district you can choose. Then so these are the broad aspects I will sum up later and these are the broad aspects if you dissect section 92 these things are discernible. Now coming to release what are the release claimable under section 92. Section 92 A to H 92 1 A to H clearly enumerates the release claimable in a suit under section 92 removing any trustee clear there can be any doubt or there can't be any ambiguity removing any trustee trustee who is committing breach of trust or not acting in accordance with the direction in the trustee he can be removed. So any either advocate general himself or two or more persons having interest in the trust public charity with the leave of the court can file a suit for removing any trustee then B appointing a new trustee because once a trustee is removed certainly another trustee must take his place otherwise there will be vacuum in the administration so once a person is removed the corollary is that appointing a new trustee also can be claimed as a relief then directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has seems to be a trustee to deliver possession of any trust property in his position to the person entitled to possession of such property suppose the trustee removed holds the trust property against the terms of the trust then of course he should be asked to return the property can be movable property or movable property whatever it is so that relief also can be claimed then directing accounts and inquiries taking inventories asking the trustee to furnish accounts if the trustee is removed certainly he is bound to account for the the profits that he has derived from the trust or rather either lawfully or unlawfully whatever it is he has to account for that then declaring on portion of the trust property or the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust now suppose there is some ambiguity assume a trust where there are lot of income and there is some ambiguity regarding the application of income to various objects of the trust and there is if there is no clarity probably the one of the persons even in the administration can approach the principle civil court and seek its advice because the subsection one says where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust that is also a relief claimable so which portion of the property or interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust can also be decided in a litigation it can be a contentious litigation or it can be an uncontested suit then if authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let sold, mortgaged or exchanged because it is a public charity no trustee can as a matter of right, sell, lease out or create a mortgage or exchange trust property so the permission of the court is required principle civil court of original jurisdiction should grant a permission to any person in administration of a public charity to alienate the property in any manner that is covered by subsection clause F and I will tell you one thing or in this context because the concept of trust in India if you read the Indian trust act you will find there is a vestigial property in trustees so the trust property in west with the trustees that is it is not ownership there is a difference between suppose you purchase a property the absolute right vests in you that type of vesting is not there but then for all practical purposes he is vested with the responsibility of administrating the trust and therefore there is a vestigial so that is why since there is a vestigial of administrative right and the property in the trustee you should leave of the court for alienating the same that is the principle behind subsection clause F then settling a scheme I told you earlier suppose there is there is a trustee running very smoothly no problem but then there is no written scheme and you find that it is better to have a written scheme for the administration so even the trustees or the beneficiaries however can approach the court and for settling a scheme even in the case of removal of trustee also the acolyte in the administration that also can be corrected so settling a scheme is very important and such suits are very common in at least in our state for settling schemes suits are being filed then granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require that is a respiratory clause H 90 to 1 H says granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require because the legislature thought it fit to leave it as a respiratory clause because all the situations in respect of administration of a public charity cannot be contemplated visualized so a respiratory clause is added as clause H saying that the court is having power to grant such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require the one decision by supreme court that is a year 1973 supreme court 371 Saren Singh's case it has been clearly stated that clause H is to be understood as a provision as a provision which is in age of stem generous with A to G and it is a relief akin to the other release claimable under A to G so there must be some nexus totally different purpose H has to be understood empowering a party or parties to file a suit under section 92 for getting any relief which is not directly covered by A to G but then the relief claim must have some nexus with A to G so these are the these are the nature of suits that can be filed these are the release sorry these are the release that can be claimed in suits under section 92 then subsection 2 may not be relevant for our purpose because that is prior to independent situation which subsection 3 to section 92 is worthy of mentioning which says because there is a principle called doctrine of see prey actually that's I think it is a french word see why PRES doctrine of see prey says that to the extent suppose in a case where there is no written document for trust things have been working in a particular fashion and after some time there is some difficulty in working that but then still there is no breach of trust everybody are well-meaning fellows they don't want to do anything wrong so they have to see suppose there are 10 objects for the charitable trust two of them have become obsolete unworkable then what is to be done there are surplus amounts also so they can approach the court asking its intelligence for what you call rescheduling the administrative sector I'll just read some of the provisions therein the court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust for any portion there have to be applied see prey in one or more of the existing circumstances to the extent possible it can be used where the original purpose of the trust in whole or in part have been as far as may be fulfilled suppose the original object of the trust have been fulfilled but still there are income where other sources of income then what is to be done then the court can decide or cannot be carried out where the original purpose of the trust the whole or part cannot be carried out at all or cannot be carried out given in the instrument creating the trust or where there is no such instrument according to the spirit of the trust if it cannot be carried out for example the object is frustrated then what is to be done so the court can give a direction in such situations then be where the original purpose of the trust provide a use of a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust suppose only a part of the property is to be used for the the objects for which the trust created then what about the other part nobody knows so you can get a direction from the court to apply the the other part see pride to the object of the trust see where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose regard being had to the spirit of the trust and applicability to common purposes so same same thing similar purposes suppose there are diversification possible that also can be done then where the original purposes in whole or in part were laid down by reference to an area which then but was since seems to be a unit of such purpose for example if you take the case of before partition because it became into existence in 1909 suppose this a trust was formed for benefiting certain persons or villages as you villages at the time of partition some villages was had been added to Pakistan then that portion can be used trust can be used so it can be modulated the application of the response can be channelized then where the original purpose in order part since laid down I mean adequately provided by other means as being useless or comfortable to the community or seems to be in law charitable or sees any other way to provide suitable and effective method of using property available by virtue of the trust regard being had to the spirit of the trust so these are the other conditions provided in E where the court may alter the original purpose of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes so this is subsection 3 actually it is a very rare situation normally it doesn't arise but even for such a contingency there is a provision made in the section itself so if you ask me to some of the special characteristics of a suit under section 92 I would say that it must be relating to an express or constructive trust of a charitable or religious nature then only it can be called a public chat it must be relating to an express or constructive trust of a religious or charitable nature then only persons named in the section can file a suit either a do-get-gentrant or two or more persons having an interest in the trust interest can be a beneficial interest or other interest possible it must be a lawful interest that's all then they can with the leave of the court they can file a suit under section 92 and leave as I told you repeated leave under section 92 is a sign equal or not it is a condition precedent for institution of the suit as we understand the expression provided in section 26 of the CTC itself institution doesn't take place unless we obtain the unless two persons obtain the leave and one more aspect in this context no the leave can be granted by the court even ex-party it may not see before granting the leave and need not be heard normally what happens is that when a suit under section 92 is filed the leave petition should contain all the details required to understand that the persons have interest in the public charity and the suit is pertaining to by a public charity and the indulgence of the court is required going by the governments in the play and the application and also the release fall under A to H of section 92 so if all these conditions are mentioned or satisfied then the court can grant indulgence there are some decisions by KLI court which says that the leave application must be in the form of an original petition OP original petition and after allowing that original petition the suit will be numbered there is another practice also here suit will be filed a plane will be instituted along with that an application will be also filed detailing all the aspects in the plane elaborately mentioning and that application will be considered first and then suit will be numbered but that is of course there is a conflict of judicial opinion there are two views possible the view that original petition has to be filed by being appropriate and then after obtaining the leave expatriate of course then the suit can be instituted appears according to me that is the correct view because if you file a suit and then an interlocutor application therein so without without numbering the suit you cannot number the interlocutor application numbering can take place can take place only after institution of the suit if for institution leave is required suit would not have been numbered at all so that is my point actually numbering is an administrative exercise numbering the suit is an administrative exercise but for that there must be an authority given to the officer concerned to number the suit number the suit is a process after institution so if a suit under section 92 can be instituted only after obtaining leave it can't be numbered and in a numbered suit there cannot be an interlocutor application called IE no that is theoretically not correct so according in my personal view the suit is better to file an original petition by paying appropriate code fee and where you should state all the details you should mention all these things the suit is pertaining to a public charity it is a charitable or a religious nature and the persons in administration are committing either breach of trust or they are swiveling the trust property and you the plaintiff the petitioners must show their interest in the property or in the trust and they should convince the court that the release claim in the suit that is going to be filed fall within A to H if all these conditions are pleaded and satisfied what can grant you an ex-party order and thereafter the institution takes place that appears to be the correct view but two views are possible there are two lines of thinking and just placing that matter for your consideration then anyway the institution has to take place only after obtaining leave and the given even ex-party even without hearing the defendant there is no bar in that in a year 91 Supreme Court there is a decision which says that if an ex-party leave is granted the court is having power to revoke it when the defendant appears and show sufficient cause for revoking it suppose the defendant appears in a case where leave had been granted ex-party defendant convinces the court that no this leave should not have been granted at all the plaintiffs have no interest in the trust or the dispute is not pertaining to a public charity or the leaves do not fall within A to H if these things are established by the defendant then the court is having power to revoke the leave once granted because there is no what do you call it there is court's hands are not tied once leave is granted no no I am helpless no that is not the way court is still having power to revoke the leave if it is granted ex-party but if it is granted after hearing both sides the same court cannot revoke it it is for the appellate court to revoke it if the leave is granted after hearing both sides that is the only difference then the suit must be laid before the principle civil court of original jurisdiction that is normally as we understood the expression it is the district court but in some states as in Kerala there can be a dedicated jurisdiction to subordinate this court or other courts I do not know then release must be under A to G or at least falling within H which is akin to A to G so these are the basic characteristics of a suit under section 92 which these characteristics makes these characteristics together make the suit of this suit under section 92 a suit of a special nature that is why we are discussing today about that so I think I have covered all these aspects relating to public channel base in respect of section 92 and I think because we go for this question and session so please so as usual the session has been explicitly explained now one question is he has only said please clarify whether there is any limitation applicable in the case of acquiring immobile property through public trust under the present laws in Karnataka or what is the difference between financial transaction existing between the private personal trust with accounts of HUF under the idea because probably that appears to be a very complicated question I can answer one part of the question because if you read section 10 of the limitation act you will find the answer section 10 of the limitation act says there is no limitation for pursuing the trust property if it has gone to the wrongful hands it can be pursued anytime there is no law application applicable in the case of constructive trust sorry express trust in the case of constructive trust probably 12 years may apply the other aspect I am not able to answer because it is something special to Karnataka which I am not very familiar so I am going to answer that that's fine and whether a trust can institute a suit for permanent injunction against a person trust as such is not a body corporate a managing trustee if he is authorized by the deed of trust he can file a suit no doubt about it because he is bound to protect the trust property if somebody is trying to trespass upon the trust property it becomes his responsibility to see that nobody is trespassing into it so he is entitled to file a suit but understand one thing trust is not a juristic person like a company or a society registered under the society's act it is not a juristic person it is actually a creation of the deed itself and of course the person in administration has every right to file a suit and no permission is required for that because he is trying to protect the trust property the next question would be whether a seal of perpetual succession arises in a trust no it doesn't apply see the entity of course the entity is perpetual but that is why I told you it is not a legal entity a trust is a it is an entity created by the parties it doesn't have a status backing for two reasons one we don't have a codified law in respect of public charities second thing the concept of trust is that it vests with the trustees the property vests with the trustees in the case of a company under the company's act or a society registered under the society's registration act it has a permanent seal and succession it is a juristic person it can sue can be sued in the case of trust it acts through individuals who are at the helm of administrative affairs that is the difference so how is the let's assume there is a liability how does it arise in the trust liability liability arises if it is because of the mile administration or what you call misfeasance on the part of the trustees even a beneficiary can question it it can be realized from him suppose I will put it the other way if the trustee himself commits a breach of trust or causes loss it can be recouped from him or suppose the trustee is keeping what you call loquam attitude towards somebody doing a mischief then also he is liable because limitation act provides for such suits there is no power of limitation so trust property can be recovered even by a beneficiary it may not be by the persons in administration alone who is benefited by the trust also can file an action to reaping the what you call or getting back the property lost by the trust so there is this who can be filed either by the trustees if they are honest they themselves can do that if they are dishonest beneficiaries can do that and they can also seek removal of such persons and appointing new trustees also can be played yes sir thank you these were the questions and thank you everyone for having stayed connected and those who have missed our previous webinars then one can always watch the youtube channel of beyond law clc they can like, subscribe and share thank you everyone stay safe, stay blessed