Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 93 - Main Points and Insights
Section 93 of the HR & CE Act does not impose an absolute bar on the maintainability of a suit in civil courts; rather, it restricts suits concerning matters for which specific provisions are made in the Act. Many judgments clarify that only suits falling within the scope of the Act's provisions are barred, while suits under general law or unrelated matters remain maintainable ["2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3985"], ["1973 0 Supreme(Mad) 389"], ["2005 4 Supreme 387"].
The presence of an express jurisdictional bar in the Act, such as Sections 93 or 108, requires careful examination of whether the suit pertains to the subject matter covered by those provisions. If the suit involves issues not specifically covered or provided for in the Act, civil courts may have jurisdiction ["2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3985"], ["1998 5 Supreme 147"].
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that Section 93 does not prohibit suits on matters outside the scope of the Act, such as claims for accounts, property rights, or disputes not expressly covered by specific sections ["2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 1520"], ["2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 1522"], ["2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1135"].
When a suit involves issues for which the Act provides a complete scheme of adjudication, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred. Conversely, if the dispute is outside the Act's scope, the suit remains maintainable ["2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3985"], ["1998 5 Supreme 147"].
Analysis and Conclusion
The key requirement to determine if a suit is not maintainable under Section 93 is whether the subject matter of the suit falls within the scope of the provisions of the HR & CE Act. If the suit pertains to matters expressly covered by the Act, such as disputes over temple properties, endowments, or religious functions, it is likely barred ["2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3985"], ["2002 0 Supreme(Mad) 1520"].
Conversely, if the suit involves issues not specifically addressed by the Act—such as claims for possession, accounts, or rights outside the scope of religious endowments—the civil court's jurisdiction remains intact, and the suit is maintainable ["1973 0 Supreme(Mad) 389"], ["2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 1135"].
Therefore, the main requirement to establish that a suit is not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Section 93 is to demonstrate that the suit's subject matter does not fall within the scope of the Act's provisions, and thus, the bar does not apply ["2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3985"].
References:
In the realm of religious endowments in India, particularly in Tamil Nadu, disputes often arise over the administration and management of temples and charitable institutions governed by the . A common question litigators and devotees face is: what are the requirements to find out a in view of contained in ? This provision acts as a gatekeeper, directing certain disputes away from to specialized forums under the Act.
Understanding this bar is crucial for anyone involved in temple-related litigation, whether as a trustee, worshipper, or claimant. This post breaks down the legal requirements, judicial interpretations, exceptions, and practical tips, drawing from key judgments and statutory analysis.
Section 93 explicitly bars over specific matters:
No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the 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. 2001 3 Supreme 396
This creates an on suits concerning:- Administration or management of religious institutions (e.g., trustee appointments, pooja rituals, property use for temple purposes).- Disputes where the Act provides a specific resolution mechanism, like appeals to the Deputy Commissioner or HR&CE Board 2001 3 Supreme 396.
The bar ensures efficient handling by , preventing .
To successfully argue that a suit is barred under Section 93, the following must typically be demonstrated:
Subject Matter Connection: The suit must relate directly to the administration or management of a religious institution or a dispute covered by the Act's provisions 2001 3 Supreme 396.
Specific Provision in the Act: There must be a clear link to mechanisms like or trustee-related disputes 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 190 1960 0 Supreme(AP) 230.
Not Mere Title Disputes: Suits purely for of property, without involving management functions, are generally not barred1960 0 Supreme(AP) 230. For instance, a claim for declaration of title over land not tied to temple administration may proceed in .
Express or Implied Coverage: Issues like trust administration, trustee removal, or management decisions fall within the bar if the Act implies coverage 1966 0 Supreme(SC) 190.
In one analysis, Section 93 does not bar from deciding if an order under complies with the Act's proviso, as it falls outside the section's envisioned scope 1960 0 Supreme(Mad) 202.
Courts have clarified the bar's scope through precedents:
Suits Outside Management Scope: In , suits for title or ownership not linked to management were held not barred1966 0 Supreme(SC) 190.
Customary Rights Upheld: A suit for injunction allowing participation in temple festivals (Kathirvela) was maintainable, as it did not pertain to administration or management under Sections 93 and 57(e)
. The court reasoned: the suit was not barred under Section 93 of the Act as it did not pertain to the administration or management of the temple.
No Total Bar for Certain Claims: Section 93 does not impose a total bar on mortgagee suits or similar, especially if not directly administrative
.
Conversely, suits over trust management or trusteeship where the Act prescribes procedures are barred 1960 0 Supreme(AP) 230. For example, prayers for on customs in temple sannidhis (shrines) were deemed administrative and thus not maintainable under (related bar) 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3219. The court noted: all the prayers sought in the suit are pertaining to the administration and management of the religious institution. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable.
The party asserting the bar (usually the defendant) bears the burden to prove the suit falls within Section 93's scope 2001 3 Supreme 396. Plaintiffs can counter by showing the dispute involves rights like title outside management, making the suit maintainable 1960 0 Supreme(AP) 230.
Courts examine the plaint's averments to determine this, rejecting plaints under if barred, but only after clear evidence 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 117.
Not all temple-related suits are barred:- Pure Property Rights: Declaratory suits for title/possession without administrative angles proceed 1968 0 Supreme(SC) 390.- No Specific Act Provision: If no Act mechanism exists, retain .- Incidental Issues: Questions arising incidentally (e.g., under Section 63) may not oust if the core suit is maintainable 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 3219.- Tenant-Landlord in Temple Properties: Eviction suits may be barred if property belongs to the temple, requiring HR&CE regulation 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 117 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 103.
However, suppression of temple ownership facts can lead to rejection of plaints 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 117.
Under Section 93, a suit is typically not maintainable if it concerns religious institution administration or Act-covered disputes, with the asserting party proving this link 2001 3 Supreme 396. Exceptions for title suits highlight the balance between civil and statutory control 1960 0 Supreme(AP) 230.
Key Takeaways:- Focus on subject matter and Act provisions.- Burden on defendant to invoke bar.- Pure ownership claims often survive.
This post provides general insights based on judicial trends and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
#HRCEAct, #Section93, #TempleLaw
, the, suit is not maintainable. ... Since the agreement for the 7 towers does not contain such arbitration clause, the application under Section 20 is not maintainable and, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. We find no force in the contention. ... By operation of the non obstante clause, the bar of suit attracts only if the dispute falls within the parameters of clauses (a) to (d) the....
, the suit is not maintainable. ... Whether the lower appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit in the face of express bar under Section 156 of the Co-operative Societies Act? ... 2. ... The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants, in support of the contention that in view of the bar created under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the ....
Section 93 reads as follows: “93. Bar to compromise of suits by or against mutawallis. ... (C)Nos.8743 & 20780 of 2005 11 with the dispute, if any decree passed is not enforceable and the appeal filed against such decree also is not maintainable in view of the wordings of Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. ... Sree Meenakshi Papers (2003 (2) KLT 225) held that no further appe....
In my opinion, neither sub-section (4) of section 29 nor section 93 of the Act is a bar to the civil Court deciding the question whether an order made under section 29 (1) was in compliance with the requirements of the Proviso to that sub-section. ... It appears to me that section 93 does not have in its view a question such as the one under consideration, namel....
Section 93 of the Act does not impose a total bar on the maintainability of a suit in a civil court. ... Whether the appellant/defendant is right in contending that in view of the remedy available under Section 78 of H.R. & C.E.Act and bar under Section 108 of H.R. & C.E.Act, the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff Devasthanam is not #HL....
If so, it follows that Section 93 of the Act is not a bar to the maintainability of such a suit." ... & C.E.Act and bar under Section 108 of H.R. ... Section 93 of the Act does not impose a total bar on the maintainability of mortgagees, in our considered view, Section 108 is not a #HL_....
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the suit was not barred under Section 93 of the Act as it did not pertain to the ... and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Sections 93, 57(e) - The court held that the suit was maintainable despite the bar under Section ... 93, establishing that the plaintiffs had a customary right to participate in the Kathirvela festival and prohibiting the defendants ... Even though learned Munsiff held that suit is not maintainable in #HL_....
The plaintiff did not pay within the prescribed date, and the defendants did not apply under Section 93 of the Transfer of Property ... 93 of the Transfer of Property Act, and that the decree was therefore capable of execution. ... However, the Court also held that the plaintiff could have applied for an extension of time to pay the mortgage money under Section ... Chidambaram Chetti I.L.R. 21 Mad. 18 in all of which it was held that a second suit for redemption was maintainable-the de....
The plaintiff did not pay within the prescribed date, and the defendants did not apply under Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act for an order for sale. ... In the castes reported in 6, 7, 8, 15 and 21 Madras series--in all of which it was held that a second suit for redemption was maintainable--the decree in the first suit which was pleaded in bar contained no directions for foreclosure or sale in default of....
Therefore, looked at from any point of view we have no doubt that the bar, under, section 93 of the Act cannot be set up by the defendants". ... I do not think that the facts of the case reported in Seshu Reddy v. ... But he refused to apply the said section 93 to the particular case tried by him in view of the fact that the dispute and the filing of the suit tried by him was much earlier to the passing of #HL_STAR....
7. In view of the fact that the Suit schedule property belongs to Temple, no suit is maintainable, in view of the express bar under Section 108 of the HR&CE Act. Thus, the said submission is untenable and further, the Suit itself is not maintainable under Section 9 of CPC, in view of the express bar under the provision of the HR&CE Act. The respondent No.1 has suppressed these facts in the Suit instituted for eviction of the petitioner.
The respondent No.1 has suppressed these facts in the Suit instituted for eviction of the petitioner. 7. In view of the fact that the Suit schedule property belongs to Temple, no suit is maintainable, in view of the express bar under Section 108 of the HR&CE Act. Thus, the said submission is untenable and further, the Suit itself is not maintainable under Section 9 of CPC, in view of the express bar under the provision of the HR&CE Act.
Therefore, declaratory suits filed by the persons against secured assets is not maintainable. If the suit is relating to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, then no suit is maintainable, in view of the express bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is of no avail to the revision petitioner, so as to maintain the suit for declaration, not to evict the petitioner from the secured asset.
Therefore, all the prayers sought in the suit are pertaining to the administration and management of the religious institution. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable, since there is clear bar under Section 108 of HR&CE Act.
7. The Court below after considering the materials dismissed the application holding that, a meaningful reading of the plaint clearly disclose the cause of action and there is no bar under Section 63 of the HR & CE Act, as the suit is for declaring various deeds and decree passed by the Civil Court which cannot be adjudicated by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE under Section 63 of the HR & CE Act, and that the relief sought for in the present suit is totally different from that of the earlier suits. Earlier, the suit has been rejected by this Court, and under Section 14 of th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
