SUDHIR G. ANGUR AND ORS. versus M. SANJEEV AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 27-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUDHIR G. ANG UR AND ORS. 
A. 
v. 
M. SANJEEV AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 2005 
(S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN ANDS.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Ac!, 1927; Ss. 2(1), 17, 
18, 19, 20, 21, 37, 38, 40 and 40A/Civil Procedure Code. 1908; Section 921 
Civil procedure Code, 1911; Section 92: 
Filing of a suit under Section 92 CPC for cancellation of lease of trust 
granted in favour of the trustees and for their removal-On grounds of 
forgery• and mismanagement of trust properties-Jurisdiction a/Civil Courts-
c 
Held: Jn terms of the provisions of the Act, Muzrai officer could pass only 
ancillwylnecessary orders in respect of the matters so specified that too after D . 
obtaining previous sanction of the Government after conducting an enquiry 
in connection thereto-An enquiry contemplated under the Act is a summary 
enquiry1--Such enquiries do not bar jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Trial Court 
was right in holding that serious allegations as alleged in the suit can never 
be enquired into in a summary manner by a Muzrai Officer under the Mysore 
Act but could only be gone into by a Civil Court as it requires framing of E 
issues and it could only be determined on the basis of an evidence-Besides, 
Mysore Act repealed-Hence, the suit in question could be entertained by the 
Court. 
Maintainability of Application for rejection of plaint after grant of 
leave-Held: Not maintainable since applicant lost opportunity of opposing F 
grant of leave. 
The respondents/petitioners instituted a suit before the Principal City 
Civil Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the 
appellants alleging forgery of a letter. They have prayed for cancellation of G 
Lease of the Trust properties granted in favour of Appellants 2 &3 and also 
for their removal as trustees. The appellants filed an application for rejection 
of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. According to them the suit was 
not maintainable by virtue of Section 40 of the Mysore Act. The application 
was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the question whether the Mysore 
851 
H 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Act applied or not would have to be decided on evidence. The Revision Petition 
was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that the Mysore Act is a complete Code in itself; 
that all matters/issues raised could only have been raised in an enquiry under 
Section 17 of the Act and could only have been dealt with by an Order under 
B Section 18 of the Act by the Muzrai Officer; that by virtue of Section 40 of 
the Act the suit was barred; that Section 18 of the Act is wide enough to cover 
all disputes sought to be raised in the suit; that under Section 18(5) the Muzrai 
Officer has the power to pass all ancillary and necessary orders as may be 
required in accordance with justice and equality; that in respect of trusts 
C covered by the Mysore Act the only remedy available was to apply to the Muzrai 
Officer for an enquiry under Section 17 and for an Order under Section 18 
of the Act, and if the applicant is aggrieved by any order passed by the Muzrai 
Officer, then a suit could be filed; and that Section 40 categorically barred 
the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in all matters in which a Muzrai Officer had 
power to pass any Order or take any action. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act has 
been repealed in the year 2003. Thus, even presuming the application under 
Order VII Rule 11 was required to be allowed, even then the Plaint would 
E only have to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. Proper Court 
would be the Court of the Principal City Civil Judge, which is the same Court. 
Thus it would be an idle formality to have the Plaint rejected to be presented 
again to the same Court. [855-E, F] 
1.2. An enquiry contemplated under Section 17 of the Mysore Act is a 
F summary enquiry of the type held under the various Land Revenue Codes. 
That it would be a summary enquiry is clear from Section 37 of the Mysore 
Act. Such summary enquiries do not bar jurisdictions of Civil Courts. Even 
otherwise, it can not be said that Section 18(5) of the Act allows the Muzrai 
Officer to deal with cases where serious allegations of fraud and/or forgery 
G are made. Section 18(5) merely enables the Muzrai Officer to pass ancillary 
or necessary orders in respect of matters covered 

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