Suits for the recovery of temple properties are not barred under section 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as they do not fall within the categories of suits in respect of the administration and management of the temple or any other matter for which provision is made in the Act.

SESHACHELAPATI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Judgment of the Subordinate judge, Narasapur, in O. S. No. 84 of 1953. The plaintiffs who are appellants before us were appointed as trustees of Sree sarveswaraswami Vari Temple at Kakaramilli by the Assistant Commissioner, hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Eluru, by his order dated 2nd September, 1951. They instituted the present suit for a declaration that the properties set out in Schedule A, B and Cattached to the plaint belong to the temple, for delivery of possession of the suit properties, for mesne profits, accounts and other ancillary reliefs.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 claim to be the hereditary archakas of the temple. Defendants 3 to 5 are stated in the plaint to be the lessees of defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant, however, filed a written statement claiming that about three years ago he paid Rs. 4,850 to the defendants 1 and 2 for the sale of items 5 and 6 of A schedule and had been since then in possession of those items as purchaser. Defendants 4 and 5 are the lessees of certain other items of A schedule. The 6th defendant, claims to be the mortgagee of half of items 3 to 6 of A schedule under an instrument of mortgage executed by the first defendant. Defendants I and 2 filed a written statement alleging that items 3 to 6 of the plaint A schedule and item 1 of the plaint B schedule did not belong to the temple, but that they were the personal properties of the archakas. As regards items I and 2 of the A schedule,defendants I and 2 allege that they were granted to their ancestors burdened with service, that they had been in possession thereof in their own right from time immemorial, that the kudivaram rights in those properties were vested in them, and that in any event they cannot be evicted without making a proper and fair provision for them to cover the expenses of the daily worship and naivedyam in the temple and for the remuneration of their services. Defendants 4, to 6 were set ex parte at the trial.

( 3 ) ON the pleadings, the learned Subordinate Judge settled as many as 20 issues but for the purpose of this appeal only issues 3 and 4 are relevant. They are in these terms : "3. Whether this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? 4. Whether the jurisdiction is barred by sections 87 and 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act ?" the above two issues were taken up for trial and consideration by the learned suborlnate Judge as preliminary issues. He held that his Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was barred under section 93 read with section 88 of Madras Act xix of 1951. On his findings on the two preliminary issues, he dismissed the suit with costs. Hence the present appeal.

( 4 ) WE are of opinion that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge cannot stand. Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. In Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. , (1940) 2 m. L. J. 140 : L. R. 67 LA. 222 :a. I. R. 1940 P. C. 105. the Privy council observed that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, but such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied.

( 5 ) TO the same effect are the nbservations of the Madras High Court in the secretary of State for India v. Jagannadham, (1941) 2 M. L. J, 47 : I. L. R. (1941) Mad. . 850 (F. B. ). The learned Subordinate Judge in this rase has held that the present suit is barred under section 93 read with section 87 of act XIX of 1951. Section 93 of the Act is as follows :-"no suit or other legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of law, except under and in conformity with the provisions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document