Point of law : No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding for which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.

JUDGMENT :

A Public Trust known as “Sri Venkata Krishna Devaraya Welfare Trust, Dwaraka Tirumala” was registered as a “Public Charitable Trust” in the year 2005. The petitioner, who was elected as General Secretary of this Trust on 26.11.2009, being aggrieved by the unilateral activities being carried out by the respondents, had moved the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, by way of a Trust O.P.No.675 of 2013 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 read with Section 161 of C.P.C (for short ‘the 1920 Act’). This application came to be dismissed by the Principal District Judge on 02.12.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had approached this Court by way of the present appeal.

2. This Court had raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said appeal on the ground that the original petition itself was not maintainable under the provisions of the 1920 Act, as Section 156 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the 1987 Act’) states that the 1920 Act would cease to apply to all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments to which the 1987 Act applies.

3. Sri Ganga Kumar Chakravarthula, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that only institutions covered under the 1987 Act would fall outside the purview of the 1920 Act and the 1920 Act would apply to all other public institutions and aggrieved persons could approach the civil courts for any of the remedies under the 1920 Act. He states that under the 1987 Act, it is only institutions registered under Section 6 which can be brought under the purview of the 1987 Act and none of the other institutions, even though they are Public Charitable Trusts, can be brought under the ambit of 1987 Act unless they are registered under the said Act. He would point to Sections 8, 15, and 43 of the 1987 Act to contend that these provisions apply only when the institution is registered under the Act. He would also mention that Section 87 Act which provides for resolution of disputes in the Act, provides resolution only in relation to those disputes which are enumerated under Section 1987 of the Act and the reliefs sought in the O.P. which fall squarely within the purview of Section 3 and 7 of the 1920 Act are not covered under Section 87 of the 1987 Act and as such, the petitioner would be entitled to approach the Civil Courts under the 1920 Act.

4. He relies upon the Judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M.G.Devasahayam Vs. Sir John.D MONTE Trust, 2011 SCC online Madras 1255. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy Rep.by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner Vs. P.K.Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, Rep.by its Managing Trustee and Ors., 2020 (2) ALT 79 and the Judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Srisailakhestra All India Arya Vysya Anna Satra Sangam Vs. P.Satyanarayana and others, 2006 5 ALD P.89.

Consideration of the Court:

5. Before considering the issues raised by the learned counsel, it would be necessary to consider the relevance of the judgments cited by the learned counsel.

6. In the case of M.G.Devasahayam, a public trust had filed a petition, under Section 7 of the 1920 Act, for approving an agreement of lease of land owned by it in favour of two institutions. This application was opposed by an interested person, who sought to implead himself in the said application. The Court after considering the submissions made on either side was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the Trust as well as the application filed by the interested person for being impleaded in the said case. However, the said interested person found that, after the dismissal of the petition, the two institutions in whose favour a lease was sought, were in occupation of the said property. Thereupon, the said interested person had issued notices to the trus