Civil Judge Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Suit Filed U/S 92 CPC Or Under Section 2 Of Religious Endowment Act, 1863: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Civil Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92, C.P.C. or under the Religious Endowment Act, 1863.Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that,“a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Civil Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92, C.P.C. or under the Religious Endowment Act, 1863.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that,
“a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is the Court of the District Judge, and not in any other Court. The District Judge can decide the Suit himself or he may transfer it to an Additional District Judge.”
Section 2 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 defines Civil Court as the “principal Court of original civil jurisdiction in the district in which or any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of the jurisdiction of which the mosque, temple or religious establishment is situate..”
Case Background
Petitioners had filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) under Sections 91 and 92 of CPC for a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction. Petitioners had prayed for constitution of an eleven-member Committee and appointment as manager for the Dhri Ram Janki Mandir.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit as non-maintainable. It further held that the petitioner did not file any trust deed and the plaint did not disclose the identity of the trustees or manager of the trust. Additionally, it was stated that no bye-laws/Rules of the trust were filed, and no pleadings existed pertaining to any public charities being administered by the disputed property.
High Court Verdict
The Court observed that a combined reading of Sections 92(1) and (2) of C.P.C. with Sections 2, 14, 15, and 18 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 clearly shows that a suit under Section 92 CPC can be filed in case of alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
The Court referred to Janki Prasad vs. Kuber Singh, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that absence of a written document or entries is not conclusive proof of non-existence of a trust. It was held that a trust can be created orally as well, with the property endowed being used for charitable and religious purposes for which the trust was created.
The Court held that the Trial Court committed a patent illegality in dismissing the suit at the stage of admission because a trust deed had not been filed. It was held that non-disclosure of the trustees or trust manager, no bye-laws having been filed, and the relief sought by the plaintiff not falling under Sections 91 and 91 of CPC were not sufficient reasons for dismissal of the suit.
Further, the Court observed that the suit could not have been admitted by the Civil Judge as the aforementioned Sections state that such suit must be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or any other court empowered by the State Government. This phrase does not include a Civil Judge, held the Court.
For ascertaining the meaning of the phrase 'principal civil court of original jurisdiction', the Court referred to Section 3(17) of the General Clauses Act, Section 2(4) of C.P.C., and Sections 3 and 18 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887.
The Court relied Muhammad Ali Khan vs. Ahmad Ali Khan, where a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a District Judge as principal civil court of original jurisdiction has the power to nominate a mutwalli on application. In Vinod Kumar vs. DM, Mau, the Supreme Court categorically stated that a Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge. In Gangadeen vs. Kanhaiya Lal, reiterated in Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Gaurav Jain, the Allahabad High Court held that a principal civil court of original jurisdiction as stated in Section 92 of C.P.C. and Section 2 of the 1863 Act would mean the District Judge and the Additional District Judge.
It was held that a suit under Section 92 CPC and Section 2 of the 1863 Act can only be filed before the Court of the District Judge after seeking the Court's leave.
In Sita Ram Das and Ors. vs. Ram Chandra Arora and Ors., the Allahabad High Court held that the District Judge only has to see if a prima facie case has been made out at the time of granting of leave.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The order by the Civil Judge was set aside, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh suit before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, i.e. the Court of the District Judge.
Case Title: Jyantri Prasad And 9 Others v. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman Mandir,Pratapgarh Thru. Ram Shiromani Pandey And 2 Others [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4294 of 2024]
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 609