LexCHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIA versus LAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
--- CHURCH OF NORTH OF INDIA A v. LAV AJIBHAI RAT ANJIBHAI AND ORS. MAY 3, 2005 [B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] B Public Trusts : Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950-Sections80, 2(13), 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 36, 41, 51 & 79-Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under S.80--Extent of- C 'Brethren Church' registered as society under the Societies Registration Act as also as public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act-Consequent merger of churches in name of Appellant-Civil suit filed a) for declaration that the 'Brethren Church' had ceased to exist and Appellant was its legal successor with rights over its property and b) for injunction against obstruction D in functioning of Appellant-Maintainability of-Held, not maintainable- Averments made in the plaint indicate that the dispute was in relation to management of the churches as a religious trust and not as a society-Control and management of the religious trusts vests in the Charity Commissioner ·appointed under the BPT Act-BPT Act is a complete code in itself-Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in relation to a matter where the statutory E authorities have the requisite jurisdiction-Societies Registration Act, 1860-- Section 13-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 9. The 'Brethren Church' was established for the propagation of the protestant faith of Christian religion. It was registered as a religious society F under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in 1944 and also as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPT Act) after the same came into force. The 'Brethren Church' was allegedly dissolved and a unified Church by the name of "The Church of Northern India" (CNI) i.e. Appellant was formed. However the dissolution of the 'Brethern Church' was disputed and the functioning of the Appellant obstructed. G Consequently, a civil suit was filed praying a) that it be declared that the 'Brethren Church' had ceased to exist; b) that it be declared that Appellant is the legal continuation and successor of the said 'Brethren Church' together with the right, title, claim, interest in or over its properties and 1037 H 1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A the constitution, decisions and resolutions of the Appellant, its Synod and Gujarat Diocesan Council are binding on all the Pastorates on Gujarat which were functioning as local Churches or congregations under the 'Brethren Church' and c) that the defendants and their associates be restrained by a perpetual injunction from acting in any manner contrary B to the constitution, decisions and resolutions of the Appellant, its Synod and Gujarat Diocesan.Council and from obstructing in any manner the plaintiffs and other members/ office bearers of these pastorates under the Appellant in acting in accordance with the said constitution, decisions and res~lutions and in their use, enjoyment and possession of the Churches and their properties. c D The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether the suit involved questions within the exclusive domain of the Charity Commissioner appointed under the BPT Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in terms of Section 80 of the BPT Act. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The question as regard ouster of a jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be construed having regard to the Scheme of the Act as also the object and purport it seeks to achieve. Further, a plea of bar to jurisdiction of a Civil Court must be considered having regard to the E conte~t,ions raised in the .,1aint. For the said purpose, averments disclosing cause'·of action and the reliefs sought for therein must be considered in their entirety. The Court may not be justified in determining the question, one way or the other, only having regard to the reliefs claimed de'hors the factual averments made in the plaint. When the plaint read as a whole · d~ not disclose material facts giving rise to a cause of action which can F be entertained hv a civil court, it may be rejected in terms of Order 7, .... Rule 11 of the CPC. The same, however, would not mean that in a given J case if the court has the jurisdiction to determine a part of the relief I-- claimed, it will not confine itself thereto and reject the plaint in its entirety. (1059-C, D, E; 1061-A-BI G Dhulabhai and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., (1968) 3 SCR 662, Rajasthan Siate Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Kri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.