Jurisdiction of Civil Court ousted.

Defendants are the petitioners and being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge of South Arcot on the preliminary issues tried by him, they have preferred this civil revision petition.

The preliminary issues on which the order in question has been passed are to the following effect: (1) Whether under section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XIX of 1951), the District Court had jurisdiction to try a suit without the matter being first enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner. The second issue was whether section 57 of the Act was itself ultra vires of the powers of the legislature. On both the issues the learned District Judge found that the District Court had jurisdiction to try the suit that it was maintainable in his Court and also held that there was no need for referring to the High Court the question as to the validity of section 57 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act XIX of 1951). After giving this finding he has posted the case for trial.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.T.V. Balakrishnan, contends that section 57 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit in the District Court Section 57 of the Act provides for a procedure to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner in the case of certain disputes and matters. The section says that:

“Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to enquire into and decide the following disputes and matters: (a) whether an institution is a religious institution; (b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee; (c) whether any property, or money is a religious endowment; (d) whether any property or money is a specific endowment; and (f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of a religious or secular character, and whether any property or money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular uses.”

The contention of the learned counsel is that since this section lays down that the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to enquire into and decide the kind of disputes that have arisen in the present suit before the District Court, a suit is not maintainable in the District Court before any such enquiry had been conducted and concluded by the Deputy Commissioner.- Relying on this section he would urge that the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted in so far as the suit related to the question as to whether the property in dispute is a specific endowment or whether the institution is wholly or partly of a religious nature. It must be observed that the enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner is nothing more than a preliminary enquiry which does not become final. In support of his contention reliance is placed by him upon section 93 of the same Act. It runs:

“No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute shall for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act be instituted in any court of law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.”

This section 93 provides that after the Act has come into existence, no suit shall be instituted in any Court of law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act. Neither section 57 nor section 93, would, on a reasonable construction of the language employed therein, amount to an ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court in so far as the present suit is concerned. Merely because a provision is made giving power to the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the disputes of the nature described in section 57, it is too much to say that the Civil Court has lost its jurisdiction to try suits in which such disputes arise. Similarly even section 93 does not appear to have any retrospective effect so as to prevent the trial of a suit already filed and pending at the time the Act came into force. It has reference only to suits to be filed under the new