P.R. MURLIDHARAN AND ORS. versus SWAMI DHARAMANDA THEERTHA PADAR & ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1163 · Decided: 10-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,,, 
P.R. MURLIDHARAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SWAMI DHARAMANDA THEERTHA PADAR & ORS. 
MARCH I 0, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
~ , 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 2 I and 226-Code of Civil 
Procedure, I 908-0rder IX. Rule 9-Suit for declaration of title/continuation 
as head of a religious Institution/Trust filed by the petitioner-Dismissed by c 
Trial Court-Another suit filed by other contender-Petitioner filing a writ 
petition for police protection-High Court granting police protection to 
petitioner holding that he was entitled to hold the office of the Head of the 
Trust-On appeal, Held: Since suit on contentious issues pending before a 
Civil Court, High Court usurped the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by 
determining the contentious issues-In order to determine such disputed D 
' 
question of fact, not only the interpretation or the document alone but adduction 
of oral evidence also necessary-Besides, another contender for the post also 
raised a contention-Under the circumstances, High Court could not have 
gone into such questions in a writ proceeding-A writ proceeding cannot be 
a substitute for a civil suit since jurisdiction of a civil court is wide and E 
plenary-Hence, impugned judgment is set aside, however, the petitioner may 
approach to the Superintendent of Police by filing an appropriate representation 
for police protection, if he so desire. 
Writs-Writ of mandamus-Writ jurisdiction of High Courts-Exercise 
of-Discussed 
F 
Respondent claiming himself to be a Sansyasi in the tradition of "Sree 
Chattambi Swamy Thiruvadikal" and Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan 
of "Vadayampadi Asharamam" filed a petition in the Civil Court for a 
• 
declaration that he was entitled to continue in the capacity of head of the 
religious Institution The suit was dismissed for. default. An application for G 
restoration of the suit was also dismissed. The said religious institution 
resolved to amend the deed of trust so as to abolish the post of 
Sthiradhayakshan and to vest his powers and duties in the President of 
the Institution. 
1163 
H 
1164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
First respondent challenged the purported resolution by filing a suit 
in the Civil Court. An interlocutory application was filed by another 
contender for the said post for getting himself impleaded as a party. The 
suit filed by the first respondent was dismissed; he then filed a writ petition 
before the High Court praying for police protection. A Division Bench of 
the High Court went into the question as to whether the first respondent 
B was entitled to hold the office of Madathipathi and Sthiradhyakshan for 
the purpose of issuing an appropriate direction as regard grant of police 
protection. The High Court held that 'the State and the police officials 
have got a legal obligations to give protection to the life and properties of 
the appellant upon arriving at a finding of fact that he was entitled to hold 
C the said office. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD, (Per Sinha, J.J: 
D 
1.1. The High Court, despite noticing that the suits on contentious 
issues were pending in the Court of Munsif, sought to usurp the jurisdiction 
of the Civil Court. It determined the contentious issues which were 
required to be proved in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence 
Act. 11168-F, GI 
E 
1.2. A person could not approach the High Court for the purpose of 
determining such disputed questions of fact which was beyond the scope 
and purport of the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising writ 
jurisdiction as it also involved determination of disputed questions of fact. 
Respondent no. I who sought to claim a status was required to establish 
the same in a court of law in an appropriate proceeding. He for one reason 
F or the other, failed to do so. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure stares on his face. He, therefore, could not have tiled a 
writ petition for getting the self same issues determined in his favour which 
he could not do even by tiling a suit. Indeed the jurisdiction of the writ 
Court is wide while granting relief to a citizen of India so as to protect 
G his life and liberty as adumbrated under Article 21 of the Constitution of 
India, but while doing so it could not collaterally go into that question, 
determination whereof would undoubtedly be beyond its domain. What 
was necessary for determination of the question ari

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.