Himinder Lal & others v/s Madan Lal and others, 2025
The Court emphasized the broad scope of Section 92(1)(h), which allows courts to provide relief as required for trust administration.
Judgement Details
Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
11 December 2025
Judges
Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia & Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit claiming that the Jathia Devi Temple, constructed before 1871 AD by the ex-ruler of Keonthal State, belonged to the local deity.
-
The Raja had granted remission of land revenue in favor of the deity.
-
Arjun, predecessor of defendants 1–22, was appointed as Pujari to manage daily puja and deposit temple income.
-
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants mismanaged temple lands and illegally sold portions of it, including a sale to Mohinder Lal (father of defendants 23 and 24).
-
Plaintiffs sought permission to file the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, which was granted.
-
Defendants contended the suit was vexatious, claiming no trust existed and they were not trustees.
Issues
-
Whether Section 92(1)(h) of CPC empowers courts to grant further or other relief in cases involving trusts?
-
Whether the plaintiffs had the right to file the suit regarding the temple property?
-
Whether the suit was vexatious or meritless?
-
Whether the alienation of temple property by the defendants was valid and needed examination through evidence?
Judgement
-
The High Court observed that Section 92(1)(h) is very widely worded, allowing courts to grant necessary relief in trust matters, including examining alienation of trust property.
-
The Court held that there was no evidence that the suit was vexatious.
-
Being beneficiaries of the temple, plaintiffs had the right to file the suit.
-
Alleged fraud and mismanagement of temple property cannot be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
Held
-
Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue the suit under Section 92(1)(h) CPC.
-
Allegations of mismanagement and fraudulent alienation must be examined through evidence.
-
Defendants’ plea that the suit is vexatious is rejected.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized the broad scope of Section 92(1)(h), which allows courts to provide relief as required for trust administration.
-
The judgment clarifies that beneficiaries of a trust can seek judicial intervention when there is alleged mismanagement, even if defendants dispute the existence of a trust.
-
It underlines that preliminary dismissal is not appropriate where fraud goes to the root of the matter; factual examination through evidence is necessary.
-
Sets a precedent on trust property litigation and the application of Section 92 CPC in cases of alleged alienation.