STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus MANJETI LAXMI KANTHA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 04-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~··-
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
MANJETI LAXMI KANTHA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 4, 2000 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 9. 
Civil court-Jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Plaintiff filed suit for a decla-
ration that suit property was not subject to any public or charitable trust or 
endowment or any provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1951-Suit and appeals dismissed-During pendency of suit 
in trial court A.P. Act came into forr:e-Deputy Commissioner made a declara-
tion under Section 77 of A.P. Act that suit property was not public charity or 
subject to any endowment-This order became final since no appeal or suit 
filed under S. 78 of A.P. Act-Held : Under these cirr:umstances High Court 
rightly allowed Letters Patent Appeal and rightly set aside the judgment of the 
trial court-Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1966, Ss. 77 and 78-Madras Hindu Religious and Charita-
ble Endowments Act, 1951. 
Civil court-Jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Tests to determine-Held: Ex-
clusion no to be readily inferred-Tests to be adopted to determine question of 
exclusion : (i) whether legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by 
necessary implication; and (ii) Whether the statute provides for adequate 
alternative remedy for the aggrieved party. 
Civil court-Jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Held, Where a statute gives 
finality to the orders of prescribed authority or special tribunals jurisdiction of 
civil court is excluded-However, if such authority or tribunal does not comply 
with the provisions of the Act or has not followed the fundamental principle of 
judicial procedure jurisdiction of civil court not barred. 
Respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the suit property was 
not subject to any public or charitable trust or endowment or provisions 
of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. 
The suit and appeals were dismissed. Therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(LPA) was filed before the High Court. 
H 
937 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
During the pendency of the suit in the trial court the Andhra Pradesh 
Charitable and Hindu ~eligious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 
came into force and the Deputy Commissioner made a declaration under 
Section 77 of the Act that the suit property was not public charity ·or 
subject to any endowment. That order became final inasmuch as no ap-
peal or suit under Section 78 of the Act had been filed. The High Court, 
therefore, allowed the LPA and set aside the judgment and decree passed 
by the trial court in the declaratory suit. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdic-
tion 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, 1908 but such exclusion is not readily inferred and 
the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than 
exclusiOJ.l 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. (941-B-C] 
Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., (1968) 3 SCR 662, relied on. 
1.2. Where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribu-
nals, jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is 
adequate remedy to do what the civil courts w~mld normally do in a suit 
and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the pro-
visions 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. (941-D-E] 
2. The suit is prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 77 of the 
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endow-
ments Act, 1966 and, therefore, the said suit cannot be a suit as contem-
plated 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. Such a question coul

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