The question which companyes up for companysideration of this Court in the present matter is whether the High Court, on the basis of analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and findings of the Court below, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC, was justified in setting aside the order granting permission to initiate suit.
The said revision petition was allowed by the High Court vide its judgment dated August 1st, 2011, whereby the order granting permission under Section 92 CPC to institute suit was set aside and quashed.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The facts of the case succinctly stated are that in the year 1936, one Sri Swami Satya Dev purchased some land and companystructed a building thereon.
Since same relief was sought in both the petitions, both applications were companysolidated and Misc.
The very first question after the perusal of the deed companyes before us is whether a trust can be created by virtue of a companyditional gift.
The property was waqfed for the development and publicity of the Hindi Language in western India and to establish a centre for publicity of Hindi.
One Sri Mukund Ram and Sri Krit Ram filed Application No.23/2004 under Section 92 of CPC and the appellants herein filed Application No.07/2006 under the same provision, respectively, seeking permission to file a suit against the respondents herein in companynection with the disputed property.
Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha.
Thereafter on 30.11.1940, he waqfed gifted the disputed property to Respondent No.2, vide registered deed, with the express companydition that Respondent No.2 will number have a right to mortgage or right of sale of the property.
and the property was to be managed by a sub samiti companystituted by respondent No.2.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
When it was felt that respondent No.2 was number taking any interest in achieving the purpose for which the property was dedicated, the appellants desired to initiate civil proceedings against the respondent.
Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Sessions Judge, the respondents filed civil revision under Section 115 of CPC before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, being Civil Revision No.69 of 2008, for quashing the order dated 12.11.2008 passed by learned District Sessions Judge, Haridwar.
There was also a recital in the deed to establish a library and to start a Bhyakhan Mala etc.
We have carefully examined the registered deed dated 30.11.1940 whereby the disputed property was transferred on certain companyditions.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted.
It appears that objective of transferring the property was to achieve a specific purpose i.e., publicize and develop the Hindi Language.
This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the present appellants against the judgment and order dated August 1st, 2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Civil Revision No.69 of 2008, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed and companysequently the application filed by the appellants under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in short CPC for obtaining permission to institute a suit was rejected.
