JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C.K. Parekh for appellants and Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Apoorva Bhatt, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and Smt. Swati Agarwal, Advocates for respondents. 2. This is defendants appeal under Section 96, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) read with Section 47 of Charitable Endowments, Act VIII of 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1890’) arising from judgment and decree dated 17.8.1972 passed by Sri O.P. Saxena, Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 6 of 19701 (Suparas Das Jain and others v. Kumari Padma Agrawal and others) 3. The plaintiffs instituted aforesaid suit under Section 92 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1882’) in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi, after having obtained permission of Advocate General. The suit was instituted seeking relief of a direction for framing of new scheme for management of Trust in question, appointment of new Trustees, accounting of money realised by defendants from 19.9.1964 and onwards and to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with management of Trust property. 4. The parties to the suit belong to a common tree. Pedigree of family as supplied to Court below, vide Paper No. Ka 1/66, and as made available to this Court, has a minor and negligible variance. However, this Court is referring to pedigree which is on record as Paper No. Ka 1/66. In the pedigree given in Paper No. Ka 1/66 and one which has been supplied to this Court, only difference is that entire tree is developed from common ancestor Chhote Lal in Paper No. Ka 1/66 while one supplied to this Court it is commenced with Chhote Lal, he had only one son Majlia Rai and thereafter the entire family tree has grown up and prefer to refer family tree as shown in Paper No. Ka 1/66 and it is as under. Chote Lal Gopal Chand Surat Singh Ram Das Bisessar Pd. Beharilal (Creator of Trust) Hajarilal Guljarilal Harakh Chand Nanak Chand Gyan Chand Chandulal Manik Chand Laxmi Chand Munna Lal Bimal Chand (Defandant 7) Nirmal Chand Jain Kumar Jitendra Kumar Govind Chand Hiralal Motilal Pannalal Moti Chand Hari Chand Bhagwan Das Sri Chand Lalloo Ji Raghunath Das Gokul Chand Maksudan Das Mahdin Pd. Krishna Das Dauji Makund Lal Ratan Chand (Defandant 9) Dr. Krishna Das Dauji Makund Lal Ratan Chand (Defandant 9) Dr. Padma Agarwal (Defandant 1) Gulab Chand Lal Chand (Defandant 5) Gopal Chand (Defandant 6) Nem Chand Vijay Kumar Narendra Kumar Rajendra Kumar (Defandant 11) Anat Kumar Pannalal Ashok Kumar Vinod Kr. 5. Chhote Lal had three sons and from his sons he had three grandsons Beharilal, Hajarilal and Guljarilal. Sri Beharilal established a Trust vide Trust Deed dated 1.8.1976, registered on 21.8.1976 called as “Beharilal Digamber Jain Mandir and Dharamshala”. 6. During life time of Sri Beharilal, Trust was to be managed by Creator himself. After his death, Trust Deed contemplated a managing body constituting (i) Babu Channu Lal Jauhari son of Shiv Bol Babu (ii) Babu Prabhu Das (iii) Babu Ram Das (iv) Babu Harakh Chand (v) Babu Lallooji (vi) Babu Chhedi Prasad (vii) Babu Manohar Das (viii) Babu Channu Lal son of Bhairo Prasad (ix) Babu Braj Ratan Das alias Lalloo Ji (x) Babu Shankar Chand (xi) Babu Mahavir Prasad. It is further said that after the death of any of aforesaid persons, the members of his/their family shall form managing body. 7. Sri Dau Ji son of Raghunath Das was the last manager of Trust who died on 25.7.1964. After his death Km. Padma Agrawal, defendant 1, and her associates, began to interfere in the administration of Trust with an intention to use trust property for her own selfish ends. She constituted a committee of Trustees under her own presidentship. 8. The defendant 1 and her associates alleged that they alone are entitled to manage affairs of Trust to the exclusion of other persons and members of Digamber Jain religion. Plaintiffs are Digamber Jain and are directly interested in Trust, hence after obtaining permission of Advocate General, filed aforesaid suit seeking following reliefs : (a) That necessary directions for the administration of the said trust be given and new trustees be appointed for the management of the said Behari Lal Trust. (b) That a scheme be framed for the future management of the trust and the trust properties. (c) That the defendants be ordered to render accounts of the monies realised by them from 19.9.1964 onwards. (b) That a scheme be framed for the future management of the trust and the trust properties. (c) That the defendants be ordered to render accounts of the monies realised by them from 19.9.1964 onwards. (d) That the defendants be restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering the management of the trust properties herein before described and known as Beharilal Digamber Jain Trust, Maidagin, Varanasi morefully detailed below by lawfully appointed trustees of the said trust in accordance with the trust deed dated 1.8.1876 executed by the late Sri Beharilal Ji aforesaid of to usurp and/or misappropriate and realise the income of the trust properties or the Chadhawa of the temple or donations made from time to time. (e) Such other or further reliefs be granted to the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs may be found entitled to. 9. The plaint was subsequently got amended vide Courts order dated 12.12.1970 and paragraphs 7-A and 7-B were inserted. It was alleged that in a wrongful manner, defendants have got registration under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1860) and have framed bye-laws dated 18.10.1965 in which defendant 1 Km. Padma Agrawal is life long president, Sri Lal Chand Jain and Ratan Jain were Secretary at the time of registration under Act 1860. 10. Suit was contested by various defendants filing their written statements. The defendants 1, 9 and 11 filed their written statements while defendant 2 and 8 filed their additional statements also. In general it is pleaded that after death of Sri Beharilal, the persons named in the Trust Deed had to manage Trust and its property and subsequently members of their family would have a right to manage and administer dedicated properties. After Beharilal, as a matter of fact, management of dedicated properties was mainly looked after by Sri Lalloo Ji, one of Trustees and his brother Raghunath Das. After death of Raghunath Das his son Dauji looked after the dedicated property without any objection from any quarter. Then after death of Sri Dauji, defendants, members of named Trustees, who were available and had shown interest in management and agreed to manage Temple and Dharamshala have taken up management. The Byelaws/Rules have been framed for smooth functioning of dedicated properties of Trust and have got registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1860'). Then after death of Sri Dauji, defendants, members of named Trustees, who were available and had shown interest in management and agreed to manage Temple and Dharamshala have taken up management. The Byelaws/Rules have been framed for smooth functioning of dedicated properties of Trust and have got registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1860'). There is nothing in the Rules/Byelaws which is contrary to the Trust Deed. Defendants have denied that members of Digamber Jain community were given right to manage and administer dedicated properties. Allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation are denied. 11. Court below formulated following seven issues : 1. Whether all panches of Digamber Jain community of the family member of the panches named in the Trust deed dated 21.2.1876 are available at Varanasi are entitled to manage the Trust properties. 2. Whether the committee of management of defendants No. 1 to 11 is against the direction of the founder as given in the Trust deed. 3. Whether the defendants are entitled to manage the Trust properties for reasons given in paras 19 to 22 of written statement filed by the defendant No. 1. 4. Whether defendant are managing and misappropriating the trust properties are not further in the purpose of the trust as alleged in para 7A, 7B and 7C of the plaint. 5. Whether defendants are liable to be removed. 6. Whether a scheme should be framed for future management of the Trust and Trust properties. 7. Plaintiffs relief, if any. 12. Issue 1 was answered holding that all the members of Digamber Jain community in general are not entitled to manage Trust properties and only members of Trustees, named in Trust deed, and available at Varanasi for management, are entitled to manage Trust properties. 13. Issue 2 was answered by holding that managing committee has been formed in total disregard of the provisions of Trust deed. Court below held that out of twelve named Trustees, members of family of seven trustees were not available at Varanasi for management of Trust and names of such Trustees are : (i) Shri Channu Lal Jauhari (ii) Shri Prabhu Das (iii) Shri Harakh Chand (iv) Shri Chhedi Prasad (v) Shri Chhanu Lal s/o Bhairo Prasad (vi) Shri Shikhar Chand and (vii) Shri Mahabir Prasad 14. It also held that members of the families of following five Trustees alone are available for managing Trust properties at Varanasi : (i) Shri Udai Raj (ii) Shri Ram Das (iii) Shri Lalloo Ji (iv) Shri Manohar Das and (v) Shri Brij Ratan Das 15. Defendant 2, Suraj Mal, came from the family of Sri Udai Raj. Defendants 3 and 8 Maksudan Das and Rishabh Das were from the family of Shri Ram Das. Defendants 1, 5, 6, 9 and 11 i.e.Km. Padma Agrawal, Lal Chand, Gopal Chand, Ratan Chand and Rajendra Kumar were from the family of Shri Lalloo Ji. Defendants 4 and 10 i.e. Umrao Chand and Ravi Bhushan were from the family of Brij Ratan Das. Court also observed that registration of Trust in the form of society under Act 1860 was also contrary to the intention of creator of Trust and there was no necessity for such registration. Even bye-laws framed by defendants while registering Society were contrary to the conditions of Trust deed for management of Trust. 16. Issue 3 was answered in favour of plaintiff that defendants were not entitled to manage Trust properties. 17. Issue 4 was answered in negative and against plaintiffs holding that it has failed to prove acts of mismanagement and mis-appropriation as alleged in paras 7A, 7B and 7C of the plaint. 18. However, in view of findings given in respect to issues 2 and 3, Court held that defendants are liable to be removed from Management Committee. To promote interest and for future management of Trust, an appropriate scheme to be prepared by Court, hence it decreed suit with following directions : “The suit under Section 92, C.P.C. is decreed. The defendants are removed from the managing committee of Shri Behari lal Trust from the date provided hereinafter. A scheme for future management of the Trust and the Trust properties is framed vide Appendix I, which shall form part of the judgment. The first Board of Trustees shall be nominated by the Court. The parties are directed to furnish the names of all the persons eligible for being chosen as members of the Board of Trustees in accordance with Rule 2 of the scheme within 15 days. The names of persons disqualified under rule 4 shall not be included. The first Board of Trustees shall be nominated by the Court. The parties are directed to furnish the names of all the persons eligible for being chosen as members of the Board of Trustees in accordance with Rule 2 of the scheme within 15 days. The names of persons disqualified under rule 4 shall not be included. Notices shall be thereafter issued to persons eligible for being chosen as members of the Board of Trustees by registered post and publication in a local daily newspaper. Plaintiffs shall bear the costs. After the nomination, the Board of Trustees shall elect a President and Secretary as provided in the scheme. Present defendants shall continue to manage the Trust properties till the Board of Trustees elects a President and Secretary for the proper management of the Trust properties. After the President and Secretary have been elected, the present defendants shall deliver possession over the Trust properties and render accounts of the Trust properties for the period from 19.9.1964 onward according to the Account Books duly maintained to the Board of Trustees through the Secretary. They shall transfer all the cash belonging to the Trust to the new account to be opened in the name of Shri Behari Lal Trust as provided in the Rule 19 of the Scheme. In the circumstances of the case, the costs of the suit shall be easy. In case of failure of the defendants to comply with any of the directions, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to execute the decree through Court and the costs of execution shall be borne by the defaulting defendant or defendants.” 19. Court simultaneously also prepared a scheme dated 17.8.1972 for management of Trust. 20. Defendant 5, Lal Chand Jain and defendant 11 Rajendra Kumar Jain have challenged impugned judgment and decree through present appeal. 21. Sri Dharam Pal Singh, learned Senior Advocate, contented that suit was not maintainable inasmuch as necessary and proper party i.e Trust itself was not impleaded as a party in the suit. In support thereof he placed reliance on the decisions in Sudhir G. Angur and others v. M. Sanjeev and others, (2006) 1 SCC 141 and L.M. Menezes and others v. Most Rev. Arul Das Jamas and others, AIR 2003 Mad 241 . 22. In support thereof he placed reliance on the decisions in Sudhir G. Angur and others v. M. Sanjeev and others, (2006) 1 SCC 141 and L.M. Menezes and others v. Most Rev. Arul Das Jamas and others, AIR 2003 Mad 241 . 22. He further contended that a clear finding has been record by Court below that there was no mismanagement or maladministration of Trust hence suit under Section 92 CPC was not maintainable and Trial Court committed manifest error in decreeing suit without looking into this aspect of the matter. He lastly contended that Trial Court has recorded perverse finding holding that management of Trust was not in accordance with intention of Creator of Trust as disclosed in the registered Trust deed and therefore, impugned judgment is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. 23. Per contra, Sri Virendra Singh learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that members of Managing Trustees were not in accordance with constitution of management of Trust and stated in the Trust deed and in view of clear and categorical finding recorded by Court below it cannot be said that suit was not maintainable under Section 92. It has been rightly decreed. He also disputed that the finding recorded by Court below with regard to validity of members of Managing Trustee is perverse as claimed by appellant. He argued that the finding is based on valid consideration of evidence. 24. With regard to question of non impleadment of Trust and whether it will go to the root of the matter or not, learned counsel, simply stated that it was not necessary to implead Trust and non impleadment of Trust would make no difference. 25. This Court repeatedly asked him on the question of non impleadment of Trust but he did not seek any indulgence to implead Trust even at appellate stage by moving an appropriate application and insisted upon his argument that impleadment of Trust was not necessary and would not render suit not maintainable. 26. In the light of rival submissions, three points for determination have arisen in our view for adjudication of this appeal. (i) Whether impleadment of Trust as one of the party to suit was necessary, and if yes, effect of non impleadment. 26. In the light of rival submissions, three points for determination have arisen in our view for adjudication of this appeal. (i) Whether impleadment of Trust as one of the party to suit was necessary, and if yes, effect of non impleadment. (ii) Whether suit was not maintainable under Section 92 CPC in view of findings recorded by Court below that there was no mismanagement or maladministration of Trust which definitely has not been challenged by plaintiff respondent by filing cross-objection or even otherwise. (iii) Whether findings recorded by Court below with regard to entitlement of defendants to manage Trust is perverse and based on no evidence. 27. So far as first question is concerned, it is not disputed that entire cause of action and subject-matter of suit is the alleged mismanagement of Trust, misappropriation of Trust property and constitution of managing trustees contrary to the terms of registered Trust Deed. The Trust therefore, is the main subject of alleged cause of action to file suit. It is also not in dispute that a registered Trust is a legal person/juristic person and can be sued or can sue in its own name, through the person responsible to manage it. However, Trust is not a party to the suit at all. 28. In Sudhir G. Angur and others v. M. Sanjeev and others (supra), a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court observed in para 12 of judgment, that Trust is not only a proper party but a necessary party. Where dispute relates to management of Trust and its properties, there Trust must be arrayed as a necessary party. Its non implication would be fatal. In that case, Trust was initially a party in Trial Court but at the appellate stage it was sought to be deleted as a party and it was allowed. Supreme Court said, once Trust was deleted from array of parties, the result would be that appeal has to be dismissed for want of impleadment of necessary party. 29. To the same effect in an earlier decision of a learned Single Judge in L.M.Menezes and others (supra), where Court in para 24 of judgment has said “ The non impleading of Trust goes to the root of the matter”. Thus for non impleading of Trust, suit could not have proceeded and not maintainable. By necessary implication the suit has to fail by this reason alone. 30. Thus for non impleading of Trust, suit could not have proceeded and not maintainable. By necessary implication the suit has to fail by this reason alone. 30. Issue 1 formulated above is answered accordingly in favour of appellant. 31. Then comes question 2. Trial Court while deciding Issue 4 has said as under: “The plaintiffs have failed to prove the acts of mismanagement and mis-appropriation alleged in paras 7A, 7B and 7C of the plaint. It was not disputed before me that the defendant No. 1 Km. Padma Agrawal is a selfless lady with a very high intergrity and it appears that the allegations in the plaint were made under some misapprehension. I decide the issue against the plaintiffs.” (emphasis added) 32. Once there is no ground of mismanagement or mis-appropriation of Trust, suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) then would not be continued. There is no ground available to manage and continue a suit under Section 92 CPC. Section 92 is attracted when there is an alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes or where direction of Court is deemed necessary for administration of such Trust. If any of the above conditions are applicable, Advocate General, or two or more persons having interest in Trust, after leave of Court, may institute a suit for obtaining decree on the matter specific in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92 (1), which reads as under : a. removing any trustee; b. 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 a 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. 33. 33. There is a U.P. Amendment also inserting Clause (bb) which reads as under : “for delivery of possession of any trust property against a person who has ceased to be trustee or has been removed.” 34. Suit under Section 92 is of a special nature. If Court does not find allegations made in the plaint, that conditions necessary for invoking Section 92 are existing, it shall have no authority to pass a decree granting any relief as stated in Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92. 35. It is true that initial jurisdiction of Court to permit a suit under Section 92 has to be examined on the contents of plaint but when a question of passing a decree in terms of Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92 is concerned, Court must find that the grounds set out in Section 92 to invoke the same actually exists i.e there is any breach or constructive trust or with direction of Court is necessary for administration of such Trust. Besides, suitor is also bound to first establish that he is interested in the Trust. 36. In respect to management of Trust, Court below has held that defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are all family members of various trustees named in the Trust Deed. However, it has observed that there are some more persons namely Devendra Kumar as family of Manohar Das, available at Varanasi but has not been included in the Managing Committee. It has further said that persons other than lineal descendants of named trustees only could have been included but not included. 37. Having gone through the entire Trust Deed, I do not find any such thing. In my view, Court below in making such observations has misread Trust document and to this extent finding is perverse. The requirement of member of family is not confined to lineal descendants. This finding is bad. 38. Moreover, while considering Issue 4, Court below has also recorded its finding that defendant 1 is a selfless lady with a very high integrity. Having said so, still Court below has proceeded to prepare a scheme of its own in managing affairs of Trust, for which we find no justification or reason at all. 39. There is one more aspect which may be noticed hereat that Trust was already registered in the office of Registrar. Having said so, still Court below has proceeded to prepare a scheme of its own in managing affairs of Trust, for which we find no justification or reason at all. 39. There is one more aspect which may be noticed hereat that Trust was already registered in the office of Registrar. It had become a legal person in law. Admittedly it is governed by Act 1882. No provision has been shown under which a registered Trust would further be registered under Act 1860 as a Society. A Registered Trust itself is a juristic person. The trustees of such Trust cannot make out a new juristic personality by getting Trust registered under Act, 1860. This act of defendants has no sanction of law and cannot whittle down the effect and consequence over area or portion as also the manner of governance of Trust under registered Trust Deed. 40. Considering the above discussion made above, we answer all the questions formulated above in favour of appellant and against plaintiff respondent. 41. Appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 17.8.1972 is set aside. Consequently Suit No. 6 of 1997 is dismissed. 42. There shall be no order as to costs.