JUDGMENT

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. — Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. We have also heard the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu and Registrar General of the Madras High Court to whom notices had been issued in regard to the interpretation of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘Code’ for short), with reference to the State Government Notification No. GOM No.727 dated 8.3.1960.

2. The respondents instituted a suit (OS No. 13 of 2006) on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore against the appellants under Section 92 of Code, seeking a direction to the second appellant to repay all the amounts spent by him after 20.6.2005 contrary to the terms of the supplementary deed of Trust, and also to convene the Trust meeting for approval of the income and expenditure and other consequential reliefs.

3. Appellants 2 to 4 herein filed a memo before the District Court stating that having regard to the decision of the Madras High Court in P. S. Subramanian v. K. L. Lakshmanan - 2007 (5) Mad. L.J. 921, the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit under section 92 of the Code and therefore the suit may be transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The learned District Judge rejected the said memo by order dated 1.8.2007 holding that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the value of the suit was Rs.10 lakhs. The revision filed by the appellants, challenging the said order of the District Court, was dismissed by the Madras High Court by the impugned order dated 25.4.2008. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a District Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, does not have jurisdiction to try a suit under section 92 of the Code.

4. Section 92 relates to public charities. It enables a suit being filed in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, ‘in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the Trust is situate’.

4.1) Section 2(4) of the Code extracted below, while defining the term ‘district’, in effect defines the terms ‘district court’ :

“2(4). `district’ means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a “District Court”), and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court.”

4.2) Section 9 of the Code provides that the courts shall (subject to the provisions of the Code) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Sections 15 to 19 of the Code deal with place of suing.

Section 15 requires every suit to be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

4.3) Section 6 of the Code deals with pecuniary jurisdiction and provides as follows :

“6. Pecuniary jurisdiction : Save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject- matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction.”

4.4) Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 (for short ‘Civil Courts Act’) empowers the state government to fix, and from time to time vary, the local limits of the jurisdiction of any District Court or Sub-ordinate Judge’s court under that Act. Section 12 of the Civil Courts Act (as amended by Amendment Act No.1 of 2004), deals with the jurisdiction of the District Judge and the Subordinate Judge is extracted below:

“12. The jurisdiction of a District Judge extends, subject to the rules contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, to all original