ORDER : The revision petitioners are respondents 1 to 5, 10 to 12, 14, and 16 in O.P.(Others) No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. O.P. (Others) No.7 of 2022 is an application filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to institute the suit. 2. Briefs facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: The leave under Section 92 is sought to frame a settlement for the 1 st respondent/Devaswom to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 to 17 and people under them from the administration of the 1 st respondent Devaswom, 5 th respondent temple, and respondents 6 to 8 to appoint new trustees or administrators to the 1 st respondent Devaswom and its institution and for other reliefs (the parties are referred to as they appear in the court below). The 5 th respondent/temple was founded more than 200 years ago by the Hindu public of Ithithanam. All denominations and communities of Hindus worshipped in the temple as of right. It has been recognised as a public temple from its inception. An agreement was entered for the administration of the temple and registered as document No.6/1960 before the S.R.O., Changancherry. In the said agreement, the ultimate authority of the temple/Devaswom was vested with the general body, which consisted of male members or the descendants of each Hindu home, who were major. All such persons have a right to be members of the general body subject to the conditions in the deed. Thus, the public nature of the temple and Devaswom is specifically stated in the said agreement. 3. The petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein are the worshippers of the temple and beneficiaries of the temple and Devaswom. The poojas and festivals are conducted in the same way as in public temples, and the offerings are received from all Hindus. All the Hindus participate in the festival and ceremonies, and they are being conducted with contributions from the public. An educational institution is also conducted under the auspices of the temple/Devaswom. The petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the general body of the 1 st respondent Devaswom. Though the 3 rd petitioner applied for membership in the Devaswom, respondents 3 and 4 did not accept the same. An educational institution is also conducted under the auspices of the temple/Devaswom. The petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the general body of the 1 st respondent Devaswom. Though the 3 rd petitioner applied for membership in the Devaswom, respondents 3 and 4 did not accept the same. The administration of the temple is illegally conducted by respondents 3, 4, and 9. In 2009, a bye-law was drawn wherein it is specified that the general body shall consist only of Nairs. The said recitals in the bye-law are against the original agreement executed in 1960, avoiding all Hindus and giving preference to Nairs goes the root of the matter. Therefore, there are grounds to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 from being office bearers and also to settle a new scheme. The functioning of the temple is on the basis of illegal bye laws and destroying the basic principles embodied in the agreement dated 19.01.1960. Therefore, interference is warranted by the Court in the administration of the temple for settling a scheme and removal of members from the administrative committees. 4. Annexure-A is filed seeking leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 13, and 15 to 17 have filed a detailed objection. The main contention is that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and the subject matter does not come under the purview of Section 92 of C.P.C. The allegation that the Hindu community founded the temple was denied. The entire property in which the temple and other institutions function is owned and possessed by a few Nair families who had been the Karayogam of Ithithanam. The Karayogam administered the entire property and the temple. The administration of the temple had been done by the Karayogam by appointing appropriate persons through registered deeds. Though the temple is open to all persons, the same is not a public temple and has not been dedicated to all sections of Hindu communities in Ithithanam. Membership in the Devaswom is not a matter of right, but to be applied and obtained only by the eldest of the Nair family who has resided in the area of operation of Devaswom for five years. All Hindus are not entitled to apply for membership but is limited to the Nair community alone. Membership in the Devaswom is not a matter of right, but to be applied and obtained only by the eldest of the Nair family who has resided in the area of operation of Devaswom for five years. All Hindus are not entitled to apply for membership but is limited to the Nair community alone. The deed relating to the administration of the temple never declares Devaswom as a public one. There is no avoidance of any person from worshipping in the temple, but the membership alone can be obtained by the head of the Nair family. The meetings of Devaswom and its elections are being conducted in accordance with the constitution. None of the general body had ever alleged any illegality in the administration of Devaswom or its institution. Therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5. The court below, by order dated 27.01.2024 allowed the application, and leave was granted to sue the respondents. Challenging the said order, this revision is filed under Section 115 of the C.P.C. The question that arises for consideration is whether the Court below is justified in granting leave as per Annexure-A. 6. Heard Sri.Narendra Kumar . M., learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.R.Krishnanunni learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. The counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the temple is owned and possessed by a few Nair families and is not a public temple. Petitioners 1 and 2, who are members of the general body cannot file this original petition against the temple seeking leave to institute the suit as per the bye-law dated 05.05.1978. Membership is only given to Hindu Nairs who have completed the age of 21 and live in the area of operation of the temple, regardless of whether they are male or female. This has been the practice followed for so many years, and there have not been any complaints or allegations of mismanagement till the filing of the original petition in 2022. Every person in the locality has accepted the temple as a private temple, and all the petitioners who are also members of the general body cannot turn around and raise allegations against the same committee. 8. Every person in the locality has accepted the temple as a private temple, and all the petitioners who are also members of the general body cannot turn around and raise allegations against the same committee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.M. Narayana Chettiar and Another v. N.Lakshmanan Chettiar and Others (1991) 1 SCC 48 ), wherein it is held that, Section 92 of C.P.C., is intended to check on applications filed by private individuals, not to harass the Trust, merely raising frivolous allegations. In Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad .R and Others [ 2008 (2) KHC 35 (SC) ], the Apex Court also held that the object of Section 92, is to find out whether the suit was to vindicate public rights and it is for the court to examine the possibility of a suit being laid against public trusts by persons whose activities were not for protecting the interest of the public. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents argues that as per the original agreement registered as 6/1960, all male Hindus are entitled to membership in the general body. The said document was executed as a continuation of a deed of ‘ME 1102’ but when Ext.B1 bye-laws were drafted, a change was brought about regarding the membership to the general body, whereby the non-Nairs were excluded from the practice, which was being followed from 1960 till 1978. The upset by the respondents is to suit their convenience and to bring the entire administration of the temple under their hands. This prima facie shows that a scheme is highly necessary for the administration of the temple from the high-handed acts of the respondents. When an application is filed under Section 92, the court needs only to go into a prima facie satisfaction that there arises intervention of the court to the public trust. 10. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows: 92. When an application is filed under Section 92, the court needs only to go into a prima facie satisfaction that there arises intervention of the court to the public trust. 10. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reads as follows: 92. Public charities.- (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the [leave of the Court,] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree. It is not disputed that to grant leave under Section 92 of C.P.C., the allegations in the plaint/petition are only to be looked into by the court. If the court enters into a satisfaction that a prima facie case has been made out, then leave has to be granted for proceeding with the suit. The court can grant leave even without notice to the opposite party, but it is desirable to give notice and hear the other party and give them an opportunity to controvert the allegations before leave is granted. The leave granted by the court under Section 92 is only a preliminary stage and is not conclusive, and at any time, the opposite party can move the court to revoke the leave granted or dismiss the suit after adducing evidence. The initial grant of leave will not affect the final decision on merits if the parties are to adduce evidence to sustain their claim. The court below relies on Exts.B1 to B3, which are the bye-laws executed on 05.05.1978. The agreement executed on 19.01.1960 came into force on ‘ME 1102’. A perusal of Exts.B2 and B3 would show that the admission to the committee is open to all Hindus irrespective of the community to which they belonged, but when Ext.B1 bye-law came into force in 1978, it curtails non-Nair’s to be members of the general body. 11. The agreement executed on 19.01.1960 came into force on ‘ME 1102’. A perusal of Exts.B2 and B3 would show that the admission to the committee is open to all Hindus irrespective of the community to which they belonged, but when Ext.B1 bye-law came into force in 1978, it curtails non-Nair’s to be members of the general body. 11. A reading of Exts.B2 and B3 would show that the beneficial interest vests with unascertained individuals, that is, any Hindu male in the locality. To become a public trust, beneficial interests should vest in one or more ascertainable individuals, and the trust need not be permanent. The court below also found that a reading of clause (2) of Ext.B1 shows that the object and intention of the constitution are for the betterment of the Hindus as a whole. As mentioned earlier, the court has entered into a categoric finding that there is a contradiction between Ext.B1 on one side and Exts.B2, and B3 on the other side regarding the membership to the general body. Thus, the court below entered into a finding that a prima facie case has been brought for grant of leave. I have gone through Exts.B1 to B3, and after hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the court below is fully justified in granting leave under Section 92 of C.P.C. to move a suit against Devaswom. Therefore, no interference is warranted with Annexure-A, and invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed.