JUDGMENT SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant who is 2nd respondent in I.A.No.667 of 2018 and 2nd defendant in O.S.No.987 of 2017 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the Order of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the above referred interlocutory application, dtd. 2/11/2021 whereunder the trial Court directed the parties to the suit to maintain status quo during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/2nd respondent/defendant No.2 filed this appeal on the following grounds. 2. The trial Court without following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts' wherein grant of status quo was deprecated passed the impugned order without defining the present state of suit schedule property. The trial Court failed to consider the certified copies of cancellation deed which was registered as document No.297 of 2006, dtd. 30/1/2006 where under the gift deed executed in favor of Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, bearing document No.3125 of 2004 was cancelled and as the said cancellation was not challenged by any party, much less the trusties of the said Trust, the same has become final, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, does not lie. 3. The appellants have claimed that the trial Court failed to consider the cancellation of the said deed, thereby failed to consider the relevant documents for the purpose of determining the question in the suit, amounts to misreading of the evidence. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents are only passersby and they have no right, title or interest or locus standi to file the suit. They do not come under the definition of interested persons as defined in Sec. 92 of C.P.C. nor can they claim any interest in the affairs of the said Trust. They never worked for the Trust for the welfare nor have they participated in the Trust meetings. Thereby, they are totally strangers. As such, the suit filed by the respondents is not sustainable under law. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents have no prima facie case. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants as the schedule "A" property is under construction and in possession of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. Thereby, they are totally strangers. As such, the suit filed by the respondents is not sustainable under law. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondents have no prima facie case. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants/defendants as the schedule "A" property is under construction and in possession of the defendant Nos.8 to 15. If, those defendants are injected from alienating or modification of the property, it will cause irreparable loss when compared with the case of respondent/plaintiff. 4. The appellants further claimed that the Court below failed to consider the property is situated at Somajiguda. The respondents/plaintiffs claims to be residents of Banjara Hills, Agapura, Nampally, Hyderabad, thereby they are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they were never the trusties of Trust and they never take any part in the affairs of the Trust. Therefore, they cannot maintain the suit before the trial Court. They have also claimed that 2nd respondent is owner of the property by virtue of an oral gift given by Smt. Subhani Begum on 8/8/2004 and thereafter, respondent No.2 has executed a registered gift in favour of respondent No.8 under document No.655 of 2014, dtd. 31/1/2014 and by virtue of a cancellation deed, dtd. 30/1/2006, the gift deed executed in favour of the 1st respondent/Trust by Smt. Subhani Begum came to be cancelled and that respondent Nos. 2 to 7 who are trusties of 1st respondent never questioned the cancellation of gift deed and they remained ex parte in the main suit, in as much as the plaintiff himself not pressed the interlocutory application against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and proceeded against the other respondents. They have also claimed that the trial Court without passing any orders in I.A.No.1153 of 2021 filed for revoking the leave granted in I.A.No.440 of 2017 passed orders in I.A.No.667 of 2018 which is not correct and not according to the law. They have also claimed that the order of the trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises, thereby it is liable to be set aside. 5. They have also claimed that the order of the trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises, thereby it is liable to be set aside. 5. As could be seen from the record, I.A.No.667 of 2018 has been filed by the plaintiffs who are petitioners in the said interlocutory application, seeking interim injunction to restrain respondent Nos.8 to 15 therein from alienating, disposing or creating any 3rd party rights over the plaint "A" to "F" schedule property during the pendency of the suit. In support of the petition, 2nd petitioner in the said petition, filed his affidavit and claimed that he and the other petitioner are persons interested in protecting the properties of 1st respondent/Trust namely Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust, represented by its trusties namely defendant Nos.2 to 8. The respondent/petitioners have claimed that they have been closely monitoring the affairs of 1st respondent/Trust. It is a public charitable Trust, brought into existence for the welfare of general public. Respondent Nos.3 to 7 are trusties of 1st respondent. The petitioners therein have further claimed that Smt. Subhani Begum purchased property bearing No.6/3/1090/A/1 admeasuring 3099.10 sq.yards at Somajiguda. The said Subhani Begum created two trusts namely "Mumtaz Subhani Charitable Trust" and "Mumtaz Subhani Religious Trust" by virtue of unregistered trust deed, dtd. 10/1/1997, but later it was registered through a deed of confirmation, dtd. 19/4/2001. The said Subhani Begum registered a gift deed on 21/12/2004 and gifted a portion of the above said property to an extent of 292 sq.yards in favour of 1st respondent/Trust. She has executed another gift deed on the same day in respect of another portion of the property admeasuring 885 sq.yards in favour of respondent No.1/trust, which is shown as plaint "A" schedule property. She has entered into a development agreement with M/s.Sirisampada Constructions in respect of another portion of land admeasuring 858.20 sq.yards for construction of a multi stored residential complex. 6. Thereafter, she has executed another gift deed in respect of the flats that fell to her share to the same 1st respondent/Trust. The said gift deeds were accepted on behalf of respondent No.1 by one Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan and Hameeduddin Quadri. But, later they were removed from the posts of trusties during the lift time of Subhani Begum. 6. Thereafter, she has executed another gift deed in respect of the flats that fell to her share to the same 1st respondent/Trust. The said gift deeds were accepted on behalf of respondent No.1 by one Syed Jamaluddin Ali Khan and Hameeduddin Quadri. But, later they were removed from the posts of trusties during the lift time of Subhani Begum. The said Subhani Begum had no issues and died on 12/7/2012 and during her lifetime, she has distributed her properties to 1st respondent/Trust by nominating respondent Nos.2 to 7 as trusties. 7. The respondents/petitioners have further claimed that on 1/10/2015 they found a construction activity in the plaint "A" schedule property, thereby they approached respondent No.4 and questioned him about the construction. They came to know that respondent No.2 has executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.8. They were informed by respondent No.4 about some internal disputes between respondent No.2 and other trusties. Therefore, they have applied for certified copy of gift deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.8 and they came to know that respondent No.2 claiming to be owner of the suit "A" schedule property by virtue of an oral gift, followed by registered gift deed by Subhani Begum, created a gift. But, respondent No.2 has no right, title on "A" schedule property. Therefore, the gift deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.8 is null and void. They have also claimed that respondent Nos.8 to 10 brought a development agreement into existence. 8. Therefore, the respondents/petitioners have claimed that the said development agreement is null and void. The respondents/petitioners have claimed that they came to know respondent No.6 therein i.e., respondent No.7 in this appeal took advantage of the fact that Subhani Begum died issueless, created an oral gift in respect of plaint "B" to "F" schedule properties and alienated the same to respondent Nos.11 to 15 i.e., respondents No.12 to 16 herein by way of registered sale deeds. But, the gift deed executed by Subhani Begum is still valid, thereby the subsequent gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.12 to 16/respondents No.11 to 15 are null and void. But, the gift deed executed by Subhani Begum is still valid, thereby the subsequent gift deeds in favour of respondent Nos.12 to 16/respondents No.11 to 15 are null and void. They have also claimed that respondents in the interlocutory applications created some documents, but they are bound to vacate the property and handover the same to the newly appointed trusty of 1st respondent and also liable to pay mesne profit @ Rs.1, 00, 000.00 for "A" schedule property, thereby sought for an injunction to restrain respondent Nos.8 to 15 from alienating the schedule property or from changing the nature of the property, pending disposal of the suit. 9. The above referred Interlocutory Application has been filed by the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. with a prayer to grant ad-interim injunction to restrain R8 to R15/D8 to D15 from alienating, disposing of and creating third party rights on suit 'A' to 'F' schedule property and from challenging the nature of the suit schedule properties. Even though the suit is filed against D1 to D15, the petitioner therein sought for injunction against R8 to R15 only. 10. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred in the same ranking in which they are referred in the Interlocutory Application and impugned order. The main contention of the petitioner in the said Interlocutory Application was they are interested persons in protecting the suit schedule properties which according to them belongs to R1-trust, thereby, they have been closely monitoring the affairs of respondent No.1-Trust. The petitioner having claimed that one Subhani Begum has purchased property bearing No.6/3/1090/A/1, admeasuring 3099.10 sq.yrds at Somajiguda, Hyderabad, created two Trusts including R1 Trust. The said subhani Begum has entered in to a development agreement in respect of 858.20 Sq.yrds with one M/s Sirisampada Constructions and got 5 Flats towards her share. She had gifted two different extents namely 292 Sq.yrds and 885 Sq.yrds out of the above referred property and also 5 Flats to respondent No.1 Trust. She has nominated R2 to R7 as trustees but subsequently the petitioners came to know from respondent No.4 that respondent No.2 having claimed to be the owner of the suit properties, executed a registered gift in favour of respondent No.8 and there was a development agreement between respondents No.8 to 10 and that respondent No.8 has disposed Flats in favour of respondents No.11 to 15. The petitioners have claimed that the property was already gifted to respondent No.1, thereby, respondent No.2 cannot acquire any right on the property and respondent No.2 cannot alienate the property to respondent No.8. As such, respondent No.8 could not have acquired any right and he cannot execute any development agreement and subsequent sale of flats to R11 to R15 is also illegal. 11. Whereas, the contesting respondents have claimed that the said Subhani Begum, who was absolute owner of the above referred property made oral gift i.e., HIBA in respect of 'A' schedule property in favour of respondent No.2 on 8/8/2004 and respondent No.6 obtained possession of the property on behalf of respondent No.2 from Subhani Begum and later respondent No.2 transferred 'A' schedule property in favour of respondent No.8 under a registered gift settlement deed bearing Document No.655/2014 dtd. 31/1/2014. Respondent No.8 got mutation of the property, respondent No.8 entrusted the property to respondent No.9 and respondent No.10 for development under a development agreement dtd. 24/9/2015. They have also claimed that Subhani Begum has cancelled the gift settlement deed Document No.3125/2004 which was in favour of first respondent dtd. 21/12/2004 through a registered cancellation deed Document No.297/2006 on 30/1/2006. Therefore, respondent No.1 cannot claim any right on the property. Respondent No.2 got valid title vide oral gift and later transferred the same to respondent No.8. The other contesting respondents have adopted the counter of respondent No.2. 12. Heard both parties. 13. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the trial Court failed to appreciate the contentions of the appellants herein, and committed wrong by directing the parties to maintain statusquo, if so, whether the order is liable to be set aside? 14. As per the affidavit and counter affidavit placed before the Court below, the parties to the litigation approached the Court with two different versions. 15. According to the petitioners claim, it is alleged that the absolute owner of suit schedule property transferred three different properties including 5 Flats to respondent No.1-Trust and she died issueless, respondent No.1 has become absolute owner of the said property and Subhani Begum cannot again transfer any property to respondent No.2 and the alleged oral gift/HIBA is only to usurp the property and subsequent alienation and development etc., cannot be considered. 16. 16. Whereas, respondent No.2 claims that the said registered gift in favour of respondent No.1 was cancelled by Subhani Begum on 30/1/2006 and before that she had made oral gift of 'A' schedule property to Respondent No.2 on 8/8/2004 and that respondent No.2 transferred the property to respondent No.8, who in turn said to have entered into a development agreement with respondents No.9 and 10. Therefore, the second respondent claimed right on the property by virtue of alleged oral gift dtd. 8/8/2004. Even according to the averments made by respondent No.2 in the counter affidavit, Subhani Begum said to have cancelled the gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 on 30/1/2006 i.e., subsequent to the alleged oral gift deed. The petitioners have claimed that the first respondent became owner of the property by virtue of registered gift. 17. The suit has been filed by the petitioners in a representative capacity. The contesting respondents have claimed that they have filed a petition and questioned the right of petitioners in filing suit in the representative capacity, but the Court below without deciding their Interlocutory Application simply registered the suit, therefore, according to the respondent No.2, the registration of the suit itself is bad. The learned counsel for the appellant herein has argued that when once the right of petitioners to file suit in a representative capacity is not accepted, the very suit itself is not maintainable. In such a case, the Court below ought not to have decided the Interlocutory Application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. before deciding their objection about the maintainability of the suit. 18. The other contention of the appellants about the order is, the Court below without deciding the status of the suit schedule property, simply directed both parties to the petition to maintain status quo. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the light of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and other High Courts, it is settled that the Court cannot direct the parties to maintain status quo without giving a specific finding as to the status of the suit schedule property. 19. In this suit, the parties have claimed right on the property and the appellants have objected the order of the Court below on the main ground that in spite of their filing the certified copy of cancellation deed, the same was not considered by the Court. 19. In this suit, the parties have claimed right on the property and the appellants have objected the order of the Court below on the main ground that in spite of their filing the certified copy of cancellation deed, the same was not considered by the Court. The appellants have filed copies of all the documents before the trial Court. It is a fact that the appellant/respondent No.2 filed copy of the cancellation deed by which the deceased Subhani Begum cancelled the registered gift which was executed in favour of respondent No.1-Trust. The trial Court without considering and appreciating the document and without deciding the status of the suit schedule property simply directed the parties to maintain status quo. 20. The trial Court while disposing the above referred I.A.No.667 of 2018 in para No.20 of the order observed that the contesting respondents having taken various pleas in the counter disputing the petitioners case, no cogent evidence adduced with regard to cancellation of the confirmation deeds and gift settlement deeds executed by Subhani Begum in favour of respondent No.1-Trust. The Court further observed that except the self serving statement of the respondents that there was oral HIBA in favour of the respondent No.2 executed by Subhani Begum bequeathing all her properties and later it was reduced to writing, no such material has been placed before the Court. The Court further observed that when once the petitioners taken a plea that there was a document and when once it is not placed, burden heavily lies on the petitioner to prove the case and as there was no proof, the Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 21. However, in the present appeal, the petitioners have categorically stated that they have filed certified copy of the deed of cancellation before the trial Court as Document No.1 in I.A.S.R.No.920 of 2021 in the list of documents dtd. 4/3/2021. They have also claimed that they filed affidavits of two witnesses to prove the oral gift dtd. 29/6/2015 certifying the oral gift. The appellants have claimed that in the cancellation deed Document bearing No.297/2006, said Subhani Begum confirmed the oral gift executed in favour of the respondent No.2 dtd. 8/8/2004. In support of this claim, the appellants herein have filed the copies of the above referred documents. 29/6/2015 certifying the oral gift. The appellants have claimed that in the cancellation deed Document bearing No.297/2006, said Subhani Begum confirmed the oral gift executed in favour of the respondent No.2 dtd. 8/8/2004. In support of this claim, the appellants herein have filed the copies of the above referred documents. Therefore, the observations made by the Court below in the order impugned in the present appeal that the appellants could not substantiate their contention is nothing but incorrect. 22. The other contention with regard to the capacity of the plaintiffs in filing suit under representative capacity was also not answered by the Court below. As could be seen from the material averments made in the appeal grounds, it seems once the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been returned as per the orders dtd. 12/4/2016 for want of consent in writing of the Advocate General. Thereafter, the said plaint was represented and by order dtd. 27/12/2016 in I.A.S.R.No.106438 of 2016, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court recalled his earlier order dtd. 12/4/2016 and registered the suit by accepting the application under Sec. 92 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.440 of 2017. However, the appellants have claimed that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.440 of 2017 under Sec. 92 of C.P.C. seeking permission to institute the suit in representative capacity. The trial Court ordered notice in I.A.No.440 of 2017 to the respondents. But, the notice of the said application to the contesting respondents/defendants No.2, 8 to 15 was not served but ultimately I.A.No.440 of 2017 has been allowed without hearing respondents therein, as per order dtd. 4/10/2017 and present suit came to be registered. 23. The appellants have claimed that they filed an application vide I.A.No.1153 of 2021 for revoking the leave granted under the order dtd. 14/7/2017 in favour of the plaintiffs under Sec. 92 of C.P.C. But the said I.A.No.1153 of 2021 is still pending before the IX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellants have claimed that when the application questioning the right of plaintiffs to file the suit under representative capacity and the application filed by the respondents for revoking the said leave are pending, the Court could not have heard the interlocutory application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C and on this ground also the appellant sought for setting aside the impugned order. 24. 24. In view of the above stated circumstances, it is quite clear that the Court below did not consider the objection raised by the respondents/appellants about the right of plaintiffs in filing the suit in a representative capacity. The objection raised by the appellants about their Interlocutory Application filed for revoking the leave was also not considered in the impugned order. 25. As rightly contended by the appellants, the Court below did not consider the documents filed by the appellants including the affidavits filed with regard to the confirmation of oral gift and registered cancellation deed where under the gift in favour of first respondent was cancelled. But the trial Court without considering the above stated aspects directed the parties to maintain the status quo. 26. The appellants have relied on a Judgment between 'Uma Shanker and Ors. vs Salig Ram and Ors', AIR 1975 Allahabad 36 (Full Bench), wherein the Court observed that the suit under Sec. 92 must be limited to matters included in this sec. . The Court cannot enlarge the scope of the suit and grant relief's other than those included in terms of this sec. . Suits under Sec. 92 are special nature and can be filed primarily by the Advocate General or by persons to whom he grant sanction. While deciding to grant sanction for a suit, a host of considerations have to be taken into account by the Advocate General on a consideration of the facts of each case. In deciding whether to grant sanction or not, he has to consider the interest of the trust and to ensure that the trustees of Public Charities are not put to unnecessary harassment by filing of vexatious suits by parties, who may have ulterior motive in obtaining sanction. The Advocate General while granting sanction has to take an objective decision and his consent in writing must cover the relief or release for which a decree would be prayed for in the suit. It would be incumbent upon the Advocate General to consider who are to be arrayed as defendants as also the appropriate relief's necessary in the circumstances of the case. 27. The appellants have relied on another Judgment between 'Mahant Harnam Singh, Chela Ofbhai.. It would be incumbent upon the Advocate General to consider who are to be arrayed as defendants as also the appropriate relief's necessary in the circumstances of the case. 27. The appellants have relied on another Judgment between 'Mahant Harnam Singh, Chela Ofbhai.. vs. Gurdial Singh & Anr', AIR 1967 SC 1415 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that in case of an institution running a free kitchen serving free food to visitors, residents of the village were such where such food is served do not have any interest entitling them to file suit under Sec. 92 of C.P.C. The plaintiffs as lambardars and followers of Sikh religion cannot be said to have interest entitling them to file the suit. Reliance was also placed on a Judgment between "L.M.Menezes and Others vs. Most Rev. Arul Das Jamas and Others", AIR 2003 Madras 241, wherein the High Court observed that the fact that plaintiffs were respectable persons of locality and were taking part in social activities, itself would not bring plaintiffs within the category of persons interested. Leave to file suit need not be gone into leave to file suit liable to be revoked. Question whether there was a mis-management on the part of existing trustee or where there was any siphoning of funds etc., need not be gone into in such case. 28. In the present case, the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit on the ground that they are persons in interest. However, as could be seen from the material averments and counter filed by the petitioners/appellants and in the light of the grounds raised by the appellants in the present appeal, the very right of the respondents/plaintiffs in filing the suit in a representative capacity has been challenged. It is the specific contention of the appellants herein that they have disputed the right of respondents/plaintiffs to file the suit under Sec. 92 of C.P.C. and in fact they have filed a petition seeking revocation of the leave which was not granted in a proper way. But the Court below did not consider this aspect while disposing the above referred Interlocutory application. The learned trial Court simply directed the parties to maintain status quo even without giving a clear finding as to what is the status of the suit schedule property. But the Court below did not consider this aspect while disposing the above referred Interlocutory application. The learned trial Court simply directed the parties to maintain status quo even without giving a clear finding as to what is the status of the suit schedule property. Therefore, for all these reasons, the matter is liable to be remanded to the Court below for fresh disposal. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Impugned order is set aside. The matter has been remitted back to the trial Court for fresh disposal of the interlocutory application. The Court shall consider all the grounds raised by the appellants vide their counter and also the contention of the appellants about the Interlocutory Application filed for revocation of the leave etc., The Court below shall dispose of the interlocutory application as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are closed. No costs.