Judgment :- Bhaskaran, J. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.34 of 2002 on the file of the VIth Additional District Court, Ernakulam, dismissing an application seeking sanction to institute a suit under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Earlier, by order dated 10-12-2002, the District Court had allowed the application. Defendants filed C.R.P.No.694 of 2003 before this Court. By order dated 15-3-2004, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial court. The trial court while allowing the application under S.92 stated that the petitioners are devotees and worshippers of the 1st defendant temple and the relief sought for is for settling a scheme for the administration of the temple. The learned Judge found that mere interest in the temple or the fact that the plaintiff is a devotee of the temple by itself is not sufficient to enable a person to file an application under S.92. Only if two or more persons having any interest in the trust (emphasis supplied) and having obtained leave of the court can institute a suit. What is to be considered is whether the plaintiff has any interest in the trust. A trust is different from temple. After stating the law thus, the learned single Judge remanded the case for the purpose of considering as to whether the petitioners have made necessary averments showing their interest in the Trust. 2. By the order under challenge in this appeal, the trial court has now found that the plaintiffs have not made out a case that they have any active interest in the subject-matter of the dispute. Therefore, the permission sought for was refused. The trial court found that the first defendant temple is a ‘Keezhedam’ of Cochin Thirumala Devaswom, the second defendant, and there is a scheme under which the administration of the 2nd defendant is being carried out. It is held that the petitioners have not made out a case that they have any active interest in the subject-matter of dispute. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court has not complied with the order of remand inasmuch as there is no clear finding as to whether the plaintiff have any interest in the Trust. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court has not complied with the order of remand inasmuch as there is no clear finding as to whether the plaintiff have any interest in the Trust. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out certain paragraphs in the plaint to show that there are necessary averments in the plaint to attract S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In particular, the learned counsel pointed out the following sentences in the plaint. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is stated as follows: “The plaintiffs are the two members of the said community who are interested in the welfare of the devaswom as well as the community both in its spiritual and social relations. They are also worshippers of the temple and they generally attend almost all the ceremonies in the temple apart from conducting vazhipadus and placing other offerings of their own. They are also interested in the welfare of the temple along with other members of the community. The suit is filed by them on behalf of the community as a whole in order to vindicate a public right in relation to the 1st defendant temple by framing a scheme for its administration.” In paragraph 7 of the plaint it is stated as follows: “The plaintiffs and all the members of the community interested in the 1st defendant devaswom believe that the situation can be saved only by the framing of a scheme for the administration of the temple.” In paragraph 13 of the plaint it is stated as follows: “It is submitted that the plaintiffs are vindicating their grievances on behalf of the general public belonging to the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community.” 4. The question for consideration is whether the above averments are sufficient to file a suit under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The essential conditions for filing a suit under Sec.92 C.P.C. are: 1) There must exist a trust for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. The question for consideration is whether the above averments are sufficient to file a suit under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The essential conditions for filing a suit under Sec.92 C.P.C. are: 1) There must exist a trust for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. (2) The plaintiff must allege that there is a breach of such express or constructive trust created for the public purpose of a charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the court is necessary for the administration of such trust, (3) The suit must be a representative one on behalf of the public and (4) The reliefs prayed for in the suit must be any one of the reliefs mentioned in Sec.92 viz: (a) For removing the trustee. (b) For appointing a new trustee. (c) Vesting any property in a trustee. (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. (d) Directing accounts and inquiries. (e) Declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust. (f) Authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged. (g) Settling a scheme or (h) Granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. 6. As held by the Supreme Court in Madappa Vs. Mahanthadev Aru (AIR 1966 SC 878) the very object of Sec.92 C.P.C. is to give protection to the public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. 7. In Harnam Singh Vs. Gurdia Singh (AIR 1967 SC 1415) the Supreme Court approved the view expressed by Sir John Wallis, C.J. In T.R. Ramachandra Aiyar Vs. Parameswaran Unni (AIR 1919 Mad.384) holding that to entitle a person to sue under Sec.92 C.P.C. it is not enough that the plaintiff is a Hindu by religion, but he must have clear interest in the particular trust over and above that which millions of his countrymen may be said to have by virtue of their religion. The view of Sir John Wallis, C.J. was earlier accepted by the Privy Council in Vaidyantha Ayyar Vs. The view of Sir John Wallis, C.J. was earlier accepted by the Privy Council in Vaidyantha Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Ayyar (AIR 1924 PC 221). The Supreme Court in the Harnam Singh’s case reiterated that the object of Sec.92 C.P.C. was to prevent the people from interfering in the administration of charitable trust merely for the interest of others and without any real interest of their own. In Narayana Pillai Vs. Jyothi (1991 (2) KLT 458), Pareed Pillai, J. (as his Lordship then was) has held that mere residence in the locality and worship in the temple is not sufficient to file a suit under Sec.92 C.P.C. In fact the above decision was followed by the learned Single Judge while remanding the case to the Sub Court in C.R.P.No.694/2003. 8. In this case the first defendant is described as Karanakodam Sri Venkita Chalapathy Devaswom. The case of the plaintiffs is that the said Devaswom is a Hindu Religious Public Trust founded by Gowda Saraswatha Brahmins and the members of the said Committee are the beneficiaries of the Devaswom. But it is admitted in the plaint that the first defendant temple is administered by the second defendant Cochin Thirumala Devaswom which is governed by a scheme. Defendants 3 to 9 are the members of the committee elected under the scheme for the administration of the second defendant Devaswom. The case of the second defendant is that the first defendant temple is a “Keezhedam” under the second defendant and the first defendant is not a separate trust to attract the provisions of Sec.92 C.P.C. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the second defendant is administering the first defendant temple through its nominee ignoring the views and wishes of the people living around the first defendant temple and therefore they must have independent right to administer the first defendant temple. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that for the purpose of considering the application seeking permission to institute the suit under Sec.92 C.P.C. only the averments in the plaint need be looked into and the contentions of the defendants can be considered at the time of the trial of the suit. It is also pointed out that it is not absolutely necessary even to hear the respondents before granting permission. It is also pointed out that it is not absolutely necessary even to hear the respondents before granting permission. But in a case where the notice was given to the respondents and they have also been heard the court is not precluded from taking into account the objections filed by the respondents while deciding the question whether the application is to be allowed or not. 10. In this case admittedly there is a trust and the second defendant is the trust governed by a scheme. But the relief sought is as if the first defendant is an independent trust and for the purpose of framing a scheme for the administration of the first defendant temple. When the temple is already administered by the second defendant which is a trust and it has its own scheme an application for framing a separate scheme for the first defendant as if it is an independent trust at the instance of the worshippers of the first defendant temple is not maintainable under Sec.92 C.P.C. The plaintiffs’ interest in the worship in 1st defendant temple cannot be said to be the same as interest in the 2nd defendant trust. Sec.92 C.P.C. is applicable only in a case where there is a completed trust as held by the Madras High Court in the decision reported in (Nacharamma Vs. Venkatappayya (AIR 1917 Mad.1008). In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Sub Court and the First Appeal from Order is dismissed.