LexSRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS. versus A.G. SYED MOHIDEEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 1127 SRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS. v. A.G. SYED MOHIDEEN AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2010) JANUARY 22, 2010 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAK~ISHNAN, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.92 - Interpretation of, with reference to issuance of notification by State Government A B - Jurisdiction of District Courts to try suits uls. 92 in pursuance C of the said Government notification which empowered Subordinate Courts in the State to entertain suits uls.92 - Held: The provisions of s. 92 do not give room for interpreting the word "or" used in the section as substitutive, so as io lead to an interpretation that when the Government notified any D other court, such notified court alone had jurisdiction and not the District Court - Insofar as suits u/s.92 are concerned, District Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts had concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits - Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 - s.12. Words and Phrases - Word "or" used in s. 92 CPC - Interpretation of - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.92. E Interpretation of Statutes - Legislative object - Held: A court as an interpreter cannot alter or amend the law - It can F only interpret the provision, to make it meaningful and workable so as to achieve the legislative object, when there is vagueness, ambiguity or absurdity. Respondents filed suit against the appellants uls.92 CPC. The suit was filed before the District Court situated G in the State of Tamil Nadu. Appellants nos.2 to 4 filed a memo before District Court stating that having regard to an earlier decision of the Madras High Court in the case 1127 H 1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 1 S.C.R. A of P. S. Subramanian*, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit under s.92 CPC and, therefore, the suit be transferred to the Principal Subordinate Judge. The memo was rejected by the District Court which held that it had jurisdiction to 8 entertain the suit as the value of the suit was Rs.1 O lakhs. The order passed by the District Court was upheld by the High Court. Before this Court, it was contended by the appellants that on a true interpretation of s.92 CPC, the District C Court as well as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district had jurisdiction to try suits relating to public trusts till 8th March, 1960, having regard to the provisions of s.92 CPC; but once on 8th March, 1960, the State Government issued a notification in D exercise of its powers under s.92 CPC empowering the Courts of Subordinate Judges in the State to entertain suits under s.92, the District Court ceased to have jurisdiction to try suits under the said section. E In support of their contention, the appellants relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. S. Subramanian* wherein it was held that the word "or" occurring between the words "may institute a suit in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" and "in F any other court empowered in that behalf by the State Government" in s. 92 CPC, should have to be read as substitutive and not as disjunctive or alternative. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the District Court had the G jurisdiction to try a suit under s.92 CPC. H Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is now well settled that a provision of a statute should have to be read as it is, in a natural SRI JEYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND ORS. v. 1129 A.G. SYED MOHIDEEN manner, plain and straight, without adding, substituting A or omitting any words. While doing so, the words used in the provision should be assigned and ascribed their natural, ordinary or popular meaning. Only when such plain and straight reading, or ascribing the natural and normal meaning to the words on such reading, leads to B ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, or absurdity which were not obviously intended by the Legislature or the Lawmaker, a court should open its interpretation tool kit containing the settled rules of construction and interpretation, to arrive at the true meaning of the c provision. While using the tools of interpretation, the court should remember that it is not the author of the Statute who is empowered to amend, substitute or delete, so as to change the structure and contents. A court as an interpreter cannot alter or amend the law. It can only D interpret the provision, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.