State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Manjeti
Laxmi Kantha Rao & Ors [2000] INSC 179 (4 April 2000)
R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
These appeals arise out of a suit brought by
Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kanta Rao against the State
of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the property comprised in
R.S. No. 400 with a building thereon bearing Municipal No. 15/184 at
Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam measuring Ac. 17-61 cents in which the plaintiffs
have a half share is not subject to any public or charitable trust or endowment
or provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951
that the order G.O. Ms. No. 1501 dated July 12, 1979 is void; and for certain
other consequential reliefs. For purposes of convenience we will refer to the
parties as arrayed in the suit.
The Trial Court framed several issues as to
whether (1) the notification dated July 28, 1960 is valid and binding on the
plaintiffs; (2) the suit property is subject to any charitable trust of endowment;
(3) the aggrieved parties are estopped from questioning the ownership; (4) any
of the parties have perfected their title by adverse possession; (5) the court
has jurisdiction to try the suit after Act 17 of 1966 came into force; (6) the
order of the third defendant dated May 26, 1969 in O.A. No. 50/69 is conclusive
and binding on the parties; and (7) any of the parties are estopped from
contending that the plaint schedule property constitutes charitable endowment
in view of the order of the third defendant in O.A. No. 50/69. On all the
issues the trial court held against the plaintiffs.
Two appeals were filed in the High Court
against the judgment of the trial court which were dismissed. Thereupon two
Letters Patent Appeals were filed. When the suit was pending in the trial court
the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments
Act, 1966 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] came into force from January
26, 1967 and defendants Nos. 4 to 12 filed a petition (O.A. No. 50 of 1969)
under Section 77 of the Act before the third defendant in the suit and that
petition ended in their favour by holding that the property had been purchased
by the applicant and other members of his family in a court auction and they
had been enjoying the same for nearly 40 years and no one had questioned their
enjoyment on the ground that the property was subject to any public charity of
endowment. The third defendant made a declaration that the said property is not
public charity or subject to any endowment. That order became final inasmuch as
no appeal or suit as contemplated under the Act had been filed. In the
circumstances when the order made by the Deputy Commissioner had attained
finality and conclusiveness and the matter could not be challenged except in
the manner provided under the Act and that course having not been adopted the
High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the judgment and
decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the learned single Judge of the
High Court. Hence this appeal. Three contentions are put forth before us as was
done before the High Court in the Letters Patent Appeals. Firstly, that the
order under Section 77 of the Act does not affect a decision rendered in civil
suit No. 11/67 inasmuch as question of title had been raised in the suit.
Secondly, that both the order under Section 77 of the Act and the suit had been
decided by a competent authority or court and, therefore, the proceeding under
Section 77 of the Act could not operate as res judicata.
Lastly, it was contended that to challenge an
order made under Section 77 of the Act a suit was required to be filed under
Section 78 of the Act, then the court could construe the suit out of which the
appeal itself arises as a suit under Section 77 of the Act. The normal rule of
law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature
except those of which cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly
excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure but such
exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in
favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil
courts to try civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i)
whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary
implication, and (ii) whether the statute in question provides for adequate and
satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it.
In Dhulabhai & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 1968 (3)
SCR 662, it was noticed that where a statute gives finality to the orders of
the special tribunals jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be
excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally
do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where
the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the
statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure. The suit is prior to initiation of proceedings under
Section 77 of the Act and, therefore, the said suit cannot be a suit as
contemplated under Section 78 of the Act. The order under Section 77 of the Act
is conclusive which determined the issue that the suit property is not subject
to public charity or endowment upholding the case of the defendants Nos. 4 to
12 that the property is private property and is not an endowment. Such a
question could have been decided in a proceeding under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act
as to whether any property is an endowment and, if so, whether it is charitable
endowment or a religious endowment. A person aggrieved could file a suit under
Section 78 of the Act. Since no such suit was filed the declaration made by the
Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act the order made by him concluded
the issue whether or not the suit property is a charitable or religious
endowment. After the Act came into force the Deputy Commissioner was competent
to deal with such a question. The subject matter in G.O. 1501 which was passed
on July 12, 1966; the prayer in the suit in O.S. No.11/67 and the decision
under Section 77 pertains to the same question whether or not the property was
an endowed property. The Deputy Commissioner considered the very question
raised in the suit as to nature of the suit property and held that it is
private property and having concluded as public charity or endowment that
conclusion became final. In the present case, there is no allegation that the
Deputy Commissioner had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act or not
having followed the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. On the other
hand, the Deputy Commissioner having followed the due procedure made the order
and that order could have been challenged as provided under Section 78 of the
Act by way of a suit or by an appeal. When neither of these courses was
adopted, the order made by the authority in its special jurisdiction must be
held to be conclusive and final. In the circumstances, the view taken by the
High Court appears to us to be correct and does not call for interference. In
the result, the appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case
there shall be no order as to costs.
Back
