Section 92 Suit Fails Without Proof of Illegality

The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, in a judgment dated 29 April 2026 by a Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, allowed a Regular First Appeal arising from a decree in a Section 92 CPC suit concerning a public charitable trust.

The trial court had declared the resolutions dated 23 December 2007 and 10 February 2008, as well as the amended trust deed dated 28 February 2008, to be illegal and void ab initio. It had also directed cancellation of the amended trust deed.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the original trust deed contemplated a democratic structure, and that the managing trustee, in collusion with his son, secured amendments that appointed the son as a life trustee and vested extensive powers in the managing trustee. On that basis, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 92 of the CPC.

The High Court examined whether the plaintiffs had established any factual foundation for the allegation that the resolutions were not validly passed or that the amendment was contrary to the governing framework of the trust. The Court found that the evidence did not support such a conclusion. It noted that the evidence of PW-1 did not establish any factual basis to hold that the resolutions were invalid or that the amendment was contrary to the trust deed. The Court also recorded that PW-1 lacked knowledge of the proceedings of the meetings in question.

On that reasoning, the Court held that the trial court had declared the amendment and resolutions illegal and void without sufficient material on record. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating illegality or breach of the governing scheme of the trust, the interference with the amended trust deed could not be sustained.

The Court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any illegality in the amendment dated 28 February 2008 or the resolutions dated 23 December 2007 and 10 February 2008. It further held that the suit instituted under Section 92 CPC was not maintainable on the facts proved.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28 February 2014 in O.S. No. 9/2010 were set aside.

Practical takeaway: A Section 92 CPC challenge to trust administration must rest on clear evidence of illegality, not mere allegations about the effect of an amendment.