Original jurisdiction of the High Court whether ousted.

S. RAMALINGAM, J.:- Civil Suit Diary No.20871 of 1988 was filed by the appellant (wife) against the respondent, her husband, on the Original Side of this Court, praying for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction against the respondent (defendant) from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of certain property, for a declaration that the power of attorney executed by her to the respondent is unenforceable, for accounts for the amounts specified in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and for return of all the documents specified in the plaint Schedule 'C', the documents being title deeds, etc. By orders dated 24-11-1988, Abdul Hadi, J. held that the suit is not maintainable in entirety and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation before the Family Court.

2. The learned Judge held that the expression, 'District Court' in S.7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act of 1984), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', includes the High Court, particularly because of S.2(e) of the Act. He further held that Explanation (c) to S.8 of the Act would be attracted because this is a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them and therefore, only the Family Court would have jurisdiction. It is the correctness of the above order that is challenged in this appeal and in view of the importance of the question and also because there is already a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Mr. Patrick Martin and Mrs. Regine Martin, rep. by Power Agent Sr. Theresa Thomas appellants, (1989) 103 Mad LW 246 : (AIR 1989 Mad 231) holding that the jurisdiction of the High Court is taken away and entrusted to the Family Court, the Full Bench is constituted to render a final verdict on the scope and ambit of S.7 and S.8 of the Act and on the question whether the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Letters Patent is in any manner affected by reason of the abovesaid provisions in the Act.

3. Before proceeding further it is necessary to refer to the judgment of Abdul Hadi, J. rendered in Petition Diary No.18070 of 1988. In the matter of the Minor Rekha, reported in (1989) 103 Mad LW 241. After referring to S.7 of the Act which states that the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation, and S.8 which states that after a Family Court is established for any area no District Court or any subordinate civil Court shall, in relation to matters falling under S.7 exercise any jurisdiction and every suit or proceeding of such nature as explained in sub-sec. (1) of S.7 shall stand transferred to the Family Court on the date on which it is established, and after referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Daily Calender Supplying Bureau v. United Concern, AIR 1967 Mad 381 the learned Judge held that the terms 'District Court' includes the High Court and therefore, the jurisdiction exercised so far by this Court under Cls. 17 to 35 of the Letters Patent is ousted and given' over to the Family Court. This order was taken up in appeal and was confirmed in O.S.A. No.186 of 1988, though for different reasons.

4. The question for consideration before us is, whether after the constitution of the Family Court for the Madras area, the Original Jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of matters that may fall under the Explanation to S.7 of the Act is ousted or not?"

5. A reference to certain provisions of the Letters Patent is necessary. Cls. 11 to 21 deal with Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, and Insolvency Jurisdiction; Cls. 22 to 30 deal with Criminal Jurisdiction; Cl.31 deals with the exercise of jurisdiction outside the ordinary place where the High Court sits; Cls. 32 and 33 deal with Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction a