[S.92 CPC] Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Leave To Sue Over Alleged Mismanagement Of Temple, Emphasises Adherence To Statutory Requirements

The case stemmed from a longstanding dispute over the temple's management. The applicants, who claimed to be the current managers, sought the court's permission to file a suit under Section 92 CPC, alleging mismanagement and lack of proper administration. However, the High Court found that the application was procedurally defective and failed to meet the essential statutory prerequisites.

Statutory Requirements Under Section 92 CPC

The court emphasised that The main purpose of S.92 (1) is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. Justice Abdul Hakhim clarified that before granting leave under Section 92 CPC, a court must be satisfied on several counts:

1. Existence of a Public Trust: The applicants must show that the trust is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
   
2. Prima Facie Right: The applicants must demonstrate a substantive, existing right in the trust's administration.
   
3. Absence of Personal Motive: The satisfaction that there is no lack of bona fides on the part of the Applicants, and it is not intended to vindicate individual rights of the parties.
   
4. Evidence of Breach or Need for Court Direction: There must be a prima facie showing of breach of trust or the necessity for court direction in its administration.
   
5. Reliefs Sought Must Align with Section 92(1) CPC: The reliefs requested must fall within the statutory heads of relief under the section.The reliefs prayed for in the suit shall be for the matters covered under Clause (a) to (h) in S.92 (1) CPC.

The Court found that the applicants failed to properly plead or establish their status as the temple's managing committee or to prove their locus standi. Additionally, although the temple has remained demolished for twelve years with the deity housed in a temporary structure, the applicants failed to demonstrate steps taken to rebuild the temple or to restore regular worship.

Court's Decision

Justice Abdul Hakhim ruled that the Trial Court correctly refused leave under Section 92 CPC, noting that the applicants failed to fulfill the statutory conditions required to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under this provision.The Application seeking leave under Section 92 CPC was dismissed for non-compliance with statutory requirements and improper framing. The Court clarified that any alleged mismanagement of the Trust created must be addressed through a properly framed application with the Trust and its Trustees as necessary parties. Liberty was reserved for the Applicants to file a fresh application if they so desired.

The ruling reiterates that Section 92 CPC, intended to protect public trusts and ensure their proper administration, cannot be invoked casually. The High Court's emphasis on statutory compliance serves as a reminder that procedural rigor is essential when seeking judicial intervention in matters of public trust administration.

Case Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
Case No.: FAO No. 53 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioners: Shri. V.S. Babu Gireesan, Smt. Minnu Darwin

Counsel for Respondents: Shri. Arun V.G. (K/795/2004), Shri. P.U. Shailajan, Smt. V. Jaya Ragi, Shri. R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), Sri. Neeraj Narayan

Click Here To Read/ Download Order