Suits for recovery of possession of properties is maintainable before civil Court.

This is an appeal against the order of remand passed by the learned District Judge of Kanyakumari in A.S. No. 38 of 1967 on his file remanding the suit O.S. No. 11 of 1965, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil, for trial. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on a preliminary point that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The decision was reversed by the learned District Judge, who has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction. The question, therefore, for decision is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The question arises under the following circumstances:

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that a certain temple known as Bhadrakali Amman Temple and its properties constituted a public trust and for recovery of possession of the properties from the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the only constituted trustees. Earlier proceedings under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, were resorted to. In these proceedings, it was held that the defendants were in possession. That order was passed on 25th September, 1963. The plaintiffs wanted to get rid of that order also and urged that also as a reason for saying that the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

The contention that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court was raised by the defendants by an application, I.A. No. 485 of 1965, invoking sections 63, 6g, 70 and 108 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, (XXII of 1959). Section 63 of the Act says:

“ Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide following disputes and matters:- (a) whether an institution is a religious institution.” Section 69 of the Act provides for a right of appeal to the Commissioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Section 70 provides for a suit in the Court (defined as the Subordinate Judge’s Court in the area in section 6 (7) (ii) of the Act) within ninety days of the receipt of the order of the Commissioner.

Section 108 says:

“ No suit or other legal proceeding 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 of this Act.”

It was urged in the application, I.A. No. 485 of 1965, that an application O.A. No. 8 of 1964, had been filed before the Deputy Commissioner under section 63 (a) for a declaration that the Bhadrakali Amman Temple was a religious institution as defined in the Act, that is to say, was a temple in which the public had a right of worship. The case of the defendant was that the temple was not one in which the public had a right of worship and that it was, what is loosely termed, a private temple of the family of the defendants and that the properties also belonged to the private trust. On the question of jurisdiction, their contention was that the plaintiffs could not come to Court straightaway and that they should pursue the application filed under section 63 before the Deputy Commissioner, file an appeal if necessary to the Commissioner against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and only thereafter, file a suit under section 70 of the Act. It is said that section 108 of the Act forbids the plaintiffs coming to Court straightaway.

As a matter of detail, it may be stated that it is pointed out by the plaintiffs in their counter in I.A. No. 485 of 1965, that the petition, O.A. No. 8 of 1964, has been filed by some other villagers, and not by the plaintiffs in this case, and that the plaintiffs in this case are only respondents in the said O.A. No. 8 of 1984. But that does not really affect the question we have to decide, because the contention of the defendants (Appellants before me) is that irrespective of the circumstances that O.A. No. 8 of 1964 has not b