Holding

When a statutory authority makes a final declaration under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 and the aggrieved party does not pursue the remedy provided under Section 78, civil court jurisdiction is excluded and the declaration is conclusive.

Summary

The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that set aside a trial court decree granting a declaration that a property was not subject to any public or charitable trust under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. While the suit was pending, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 came into force and the Deputy Commissioner issued a declaration under Section 77 that the same property was not a public charity or endowment. No appeal or suit under Section 78 of the Act was filed, rendering the declaration final. The Supreme Court examined whether the civil court’s jurisdiction was excluded under Section 9 of the CPC, applying the test of legislative intent and availability of an alternative remedy. It held that the final declaration under Section 77 barred the civil suit and that the High Court was correct in setting aside the trial court judgment. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Whether the declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act is conclusive and bars the declaratory suit filed earlier.
Whether the suit filed prior to the enactment of the Act can be treated as a suit under Section 78 of the Act.
Whether an adequate alternative remedy exists for aggrieved parties under the Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

civil court jurisdictionexclusion of jurisdictionspecial tribunalfinality of orderSection 77Section 78declaratory suitletters patent appealstatutory interpretation

Judgment

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A
~··-
v.
MANJETI LAXMI KANTHA RAO (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

APRIL 4, 2000

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Section 9.

Civil court-Jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Plaintifffiled 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
c
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 D
rightly allowed Letters Patent Appeal and rightly set aside the judgment ofthe
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-
E
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.
F
Civil court-Jurisdiction-Exclusion of-Held, Where a statute gives
finality to the orders ofprescribed authority or special tribunals jurisdiction of
civil court is excluded-However, if such authority or tribunal does not comply
with the provisions ofthe Act or has not followed the fundamental principle of
judicial procedure jurisdiction of civil court not barred.
G
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
(LPA) was filed before the High Court. H
937
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A 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,
B
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

c 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]

E 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-
F 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-
G
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 could have been decided in ·
a proceeding under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act as to whether any property is
H an endowment and, if so, whether it is charitable endowment or a religious
STATE v. M.L.K. RAO [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 939
..__ endowment. A person aggrieved could file a suit under Section 78 of the A
Act. Since no suit was filed the declaration made by the Deputy Commis·
sioner under Section 77 of the Act and the order made by him concluded the
issue whether or not the suit property is a charitable or religious endow-
ment. After the Act came into force the Deputy Commissioner was compe-
tent to deal with such a question. (941-E-G]
B
3. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Deputy Com·
missioner had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act or not having
followed the fundamental principles of judkial procedure. On the other
hand, the Deputy Commissioner having followed the due procedure made

-- the order and that order could have been challenged as provided under
Section 78 of the Act by way of a suit or by an appeal. When neither of
c
these courses was adopted, the order made by the authority in its special
jurisdiction must be held to be conclusive and final. [942-B-C}

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3637-38 of
1988. D

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.86 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 105/81 and 43 of 1983.

T.V.S.N. Chari and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellant.
E
R. Venugopal Reddy, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, Y. Subba Rao, Shanti
Narayanan, B. Kanta Rao and Mrs. Sudha Gupta for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. These appeals arise out of a suit brought by F
Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kanta Rao against
the State of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the property
comprised in R.S. No. 400 with a building thereon bearing Municipal No. 15/
184 at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam measuring Ac. 17-61 cents in which the
plaintiffs h~ve a half share is not subject to any public or charitable trust or G
endowment or provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1951 that the order G.O. Ms. No. 1501 dated July .12, 1979
is void; and for certain other consequential reliefs. For purposes of conven-
ience we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit.

The Trial Court framed several issues as to whether (1) the notification H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A dated July 28, 1960 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs; (2) the suit property
is subject to any charitable trust of endowment; (3) the aggrieved parties are
estopped from questioning the ownership; (4) any of the parties have per-
fected their title by adverse possession; (5) the court has jurisdiction to try the
suit after Act 17of1966_ came into force; (6) the order of the third defendant
dated May 26, 1969 in 0.A. No. 50169 is conclusive and binding on the
B parties; and (7) any of the parties are estopped from contending that the plaint
schedi.t,? property constitutes charitable endowment in view of the order of
the thi1 ; defendant in O.A. No. 50169. On all the issues the trial court held
against the plaintiffs. Two appeals were filed in the High Court against the
-
judgment of the trial court which were dismissed. 'fhereupon two Letters
c Patent Appeals were filed.

When the suit was pending m the trial court the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966
[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] came into force from January 26, 1967
and defendants Nos. 4 to 12 filed a petition (O.A. No. 50 of 1969) under
D
Section 77 of the Act before the third defendant in the suit and that petition
ended in their favour by holding that the property had been purchased by the
applicant and other members of his family in a court auction and they had
been enjoying the same for nearly 40 years and no one had questioned their
enjoyment on the ground that the property was subject to any public charity
E of endowment. The third defendant made a declaration that the said property
is not public charity or subject to any endowment. That order became fmal
inasmuch as no appeal or suit as contemplated under the Act had been filed.
In the circumstances when the order made by the Deputy Commissioner had
attained finality and conclusiveness and the matter could not be challenged
F except in the manner provided under the Act and that course having not been
adopted the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by tl1e learned
single Judge of the High Court. Hence this appeal.

Three contentions are put forth before us as was done before the High
G Court in the Letters Patent Appeals. Firstly, that the order under Section 77
of the Act does not affect a decision rendered in civil suit No. 11167 inasmuch
as question of title had been raised in the suit. Secondly, tl1at both _the order
under Section 77 of the Act and the suit had been decided by a competent
authority or court and, therefore, tl1e proceeding under Section 77 of the Act
H could not operate as res judicata. Lastly, it was contended that to challenge
STATE v. M.L.K. RAO [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 941
an order made under Section 77 of the Act a suit was required to be filed A
~der Section 78 of the Act, then the court could construe the suit out of
which the appeal itself arises as a suit under Section 77 of the Act.

The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction 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 B
Civil Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption
to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion 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 c
for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an
order made under it. In Dhulahhai & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
& Am:, [1968] 3 SCR 662, it was noticed that where a statute gives fmality
to the orders of the special tribunals jurisdiction of the civil courts must be
held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts
would normally do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude D
those cases where the provisions 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.

The suit is prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 77 of the
E
Act and, therefore, the said suit cannot be a suit as contemplated 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 upholding the case of the defendant Nos. 4 to 12 that
the property is private property and is not an endowment. Such a question
could have been decided in a proceeding under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act
F
as to whether any property is an endowment and, if so, whether it is
charitable endowment or a religious endowment. A person aggrieved could
file a suit under Section 78 of the Act. Since no such suit was filed the
declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act
the order made by him concluded the issue whether or not the suit property G
is a charitable or religious endowment. After the Act came into force the
Deputy Commissioner was competent to deal with such a question. The
subject matter in G.O. 1501 which was passed on July 12, 1966; the prayer
in the suit in O.S. No. 11/67 and the decision under Section 77 pertains to
the same question whether or not the property was an endowed property. The H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R.
A Deputy Commissioner considered the very question raised in the suit as to
nature of the suit property and held that ·it is private property and having
concluded as public charity or endowment that conclusion became final.

In the present case, there is no allegation that the Deputy Commissioner
had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act or not having followed the
B funda>.Hental principles of judicial procedure. On the other hand, the Deputy
Commi:>sioner having followed the due procedure made the order and that
order could have been challenged as provided under Section 78 of the Act by
way of a suit or by an appeal. When neither of these courses was adopted, the
order made by the authority in its special jurisdiction must be held to be
c conclusive and final.

In the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court appears to us
to be correct and does not call for interference. In. the result. the appeals are
dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to
costs.
D
v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.