Report No. 27
Section 92 and costs
The Hindu Religious Endowments Commission1 has drawn attention to the fact that litigation under section 92 often involves expense for members of the public who have to move the law, and has recommended that the defendant should in all such cases be made personally liable for costs if he is in the wrong .and that he should not be entitled to spend the funds of the institution unless his contentions are found to be just and are upheld.
This is a point which can be appropriately considered when the law of public trusts is revised.
4. Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments Commission (1960-62), p. 127, Chapter XI, para. 20.
Section 92 and notice
Notice.-A suggestion has been received to the effect that a provision for giving notice to persons interested in the trust should be inserted in section 92. The analogy of Order
I, rule 8 has been cited in this connection. The suggestion has not been accepted. A suit under section 92 can be instituted only by persons who have obtained the consent of .the Advocate-General. It would be contrary to the scheme of the section to add as a party a person who has not obtained such a consent. It may be that a decree in a suit under section 92 binds all persons interested in the trust1-2-3-4. But that is not a point justifying the insertion of the provision suggested.
(Order I, rule 8 does not ordinarily apply to suits under section 92)5.
1. Anjuman Islama v. Latafat Ali, AIR 1950 All 109 (118).
2. S. Veeraraghava v. Parthasarathi, AIR 1925 Mad 1070.
3. Sunni Central Board v. Sirajul Haq, AIR 1954 All 88.
4. Khaja Hasanulla v. Royal Mosque Trust Board, AIR 1948 Mad 134.
5. Bapagowda v. Vinayak, AIR 1941 Born 317.