SAHEBGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus OGEPPA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 28-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAHEBGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
V. 
OGEPPA AND ORS. 
MARCH 28, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trust Act,1950: Ss.2(13), 2(18), 18,19,79 and 80. 
Public Trust/Temples-Suit for claiming rights of Pujariki as ancestral 
.. 
c pujari--Jurisdiction of Civil Court-Held: Since relieft claimed by the petitioner 
do not relate to declaration of trustltrusr property on which decisions of the 
authority/officer under the Act has been conclusive. Civil Court has jurisdiction 
to entertain such suit-Mere fact that application for registration of Temple 
and annexed land as public trust was pending before the authority under the 
D Act cannot in any manner oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court-Matter remanded 
for adjudication afresh-Directions issued~ivil Procedure Code, 1908-0.9, 
R.9 and Section 9. 
The question which arose in these appeals was whether the 
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted under Section 80 of the Bombay 
E Public Trust Act to entertain the suit in which petitioners claiming their 
rights of pujariki as ancestral pujarl in respect of the temple and land 
annexed thereto when application for registration ofsuch temple as public 
trust was pending before the compete1~t authority under the Act. 
F 
Answering the question in the ni~gative, the Court 
HELO: t.IThe Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 has been enacted 
to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public, 
religious and charitable trusts. (95-A( 
G 
1.2. Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure clearly lays down that th~ 
Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting 
suits of which their cognizance is eith~'r expressly or impliedly barred. It 
is well settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try all suits of civil 
I•
nature and the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be 
rightly inferred. Such exclusion muslt be either explicitly expressed or 
H clearly implied. (96-B, q 
90 
r 
SAHEBGOUDA (DEAD) BY LRS. v. OGEPPA 
91 
Musamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabri Govindbhai Ratnabhai and A 
Ors .. AIR (1969) SC 439; Dewaji v. Ganpatlal. AIR (1969) SC 560 and VLNS 
Temple v. /. Pattabhirami Reddi, AIR (1967) SC 781, relied on. 
1.3. The only right claimed by the appellants is that of being ancestral 
Pujaris of the temple. The appellants do not claim themselves to be the 
trustees of any trust as defined under Section 2(18) of the Act. No B 
declaration regarding the existence or otherwise of a trust or that any 
particular property is the property of such trust which comes within the 
purview of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 
79 of the Act has been claimed. The only relief claimed was a declaration 
regarding the right of the appellants to function as hereditary Pujaris or C 
their Pujariki rights of performing Puja in the temple and a consequential 
decree for injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering with 
the aforesaid rights of the appellants. The reliefs so claimed do not at all 
come within the ambit of Section 19 or Section 79 of the Act on which the 
Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner has the jurisdiction to hold 
an inquiry and give a decision. Therefore, the bar of Section 80 of the Act D 
which by the express language used is confined to "any question which is 
by or under this Act be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority 
under this Act and in respect of which the decision or order ofsnch officer 
or authority has been made final and conclusive" would not apply. 
(97-F, G, H; 98-A) E 
1.4. The mere fact that the appellants along with others had taken 
steps to get the temple and the land annexed to it registered as public trust 
by moving an application to that effect under Section 18 of the Act before 
the Assistanf Charity Commissioner cannot in any manner oust the 
jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the allegations disclosed in the· p 
plaint and the relief claimed therein. The view taken by the High Court 
is clearly erroneous in law and is set aside and the matter is remanded 
for a fresh decision in accordance with law. (98-C, E; Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1352-1353 of 
1993. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24. 7 .1992 of the •Karnataka High 
Court in R.S.A. Nos.708-709 of 1990. 
R.S. Hegde, I. Ahmed, Chandra Prakash and S.K. Agnihotri for the_ 
Appellant. 
H 
92 
SUPREME COURT .REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
K.R. Naga

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