LAW FINDER

Submitted By: Adv.Vijay P. Mahajan (Waghodkar)Raver.

State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao, (SC) Law Finder Doc Id # 88518
2000(3) ALL MR 664 : 2000 AIR (Supreme Court) 2220 : 2000(1) CurLJ 476 : 2000(3) SCC 689 :
2000(3) Scale 61 : 2000(4) JT 157 : 2000(2) SCR 937 : 2000(3) Supreme 66 : 2000(sup) DNJ 23 : 2000
AIR (SCW) 2334 : 2000(2) All. C.J. 988 : 2000(3) APLJ 111 : 2000 SriLJ 650
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3637-38 of 1988. D/d. 4.4.2000
State of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (D) by L.Rs. and others - Respondent
For the Appellant :- T.V.S.N. Chari and Anil Kumar Tandale, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- R. Venugopal Reddy, Sr. Advocate with K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, Y. Subba
Rao, Shanti Narayanan, B. Kanta Rao and Mrs. Sudha Gupta, Advocates.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Exclusion of jurisdiction of
try civil suit - Such exclusion is not readily inferred - The presumption to be drawn must be in
favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction - The test adopted in examining
such question - (i) Whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicity or by necessary
implication - (ii) Whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory
alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it.
[Para 5]
Cases Referred :-
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968)3 SCR 662.
JUDGMENT
S. Rajendra Babu, J. - These appeals arise out of a suit brought by 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 have a
half share is not subject to any public or charitable trust or 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 convenience we will
refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit.
2. The trial Court framed several issues as to whether (1) the notification dated July 28, 1960 is valid
and binding on the plaintiffs; (2) the suit property is subject to any charitable trust or endowment;
(3) the aggrieved parties are estopped from questioning the ownership; (4) any of the parties have
perfected their title by adverse possession; (5) the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit after Act 17

1/3
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Adv.Vijay P. Mahajan (Waghodkar)Raver.
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

of 1966 came into force; (6) the order of the third defendant dated May 26, in O.A. No. 50/69 is
conclusive and binding on the parties; and (7) any of the parties are estopped from contending that
the plaint schedule property constitutes charitable endowment in view of the order of the third
defendant in O.A. No. 50/69. 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.
Thereupon two Letters Patent Appeals were filed.
3. When the suit was pending in 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
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 of
endowment. The third defendant made a declaration that the said property is not public charity or
subject to any endowment. That order became final 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
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 the learned single Judge of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
4. Three contentions are put forth before us as was done before the High 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. 11/67 inasmuch as question of title had been raised in the suit. Secondly,
that both the order under Section 77 of the Act and the suit had been decided by a competent
authority or Court and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 77 of the Act could not operate as
res judicata. Lastly, it was contended that to challenge an order made under Section 77 of the Act a
suit was required to be filed under Section 78 of the Act, then the Court would construe the suit out
of which the appeal itself arises as a suit under Section 77 of the Act.
5. 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 Civil Procedure Code 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 legislature
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. In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968)3 SCR 662 , it was noticed
that where a statute gives finality 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 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.
6. The suit is prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 77 of the 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 defendants Nos. 4 to 12 that the property is private

2/3
 LAW FINDER
Submitted By: Adv.Vijay P. Mahajan (Waghodkar)Raver.
PDF downloaded from the online archives of Chawla Publications(P) Ltd.

property and is not an 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 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 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 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.
7. 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 fundamental principles of judicial 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 these courses was adopted, the order made by the authority in its
special jurisdiction must be held to be conclusive and final.
8. 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.
Appeal dismissed.

3/3