2005 (4) TMI 608 - SC - Indian Laws

Registered Society - Applicability of the principle of res judicata - Non-compliance with Order 31 Rule 2 CPC - Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted in terms of Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 ('the Act') falls for consideration - HELD THAT - The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is not an empty formality. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court exemplifies the said doctrine. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be held to have been ousted unless it is so, expressly or by necessary implication, stated in the statute. In terms of Section 53A of the Act, a dispute as to educational agency is concededly required to be decided by a Civil Court. How the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is required to be invoked is a matter to be examined by the Civil Court. Unlike a private tribunal or a statutory tribunal which would not derive a jurisdiction unless a reference in terms of the provisions of the Act is made to it, the Civil Court enjoys a plenary jurisdiction. Furthermore, if and when a dispute arises before the competent authority as regard entitlement of an educational agency in relation to educational institutions, the same must also be referred to the Civil Court. Statutory authority in terms of Section 5 of the Act cannot be said to have any jurisdiction to determine such a dispute. A statute, as is well-known, must be read in such a manner so as to give effect to the provisions thereof. It must be read reasonably. A statute must be construed in such a manner so as to make it workable. The wordings referred by the persons interested would, thus, mean a person who has a grievance as regard claim of other side relating to educational agency of the educational institutions. It can be done by filing a suit before the Civil Suit. The term persons which is plural has been used having regard to the fact that educational agency need not be a person alone but would also include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or a body corporate in terms of the Companies Act. In any event, if such a dispute within the contemplation of Section 53A has to be decided by a civil court, it will not attract the bar under Section 53 which applies only to a question which is required to be dealt with or decided by any authority or officer mentioned in the Act. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973.
2. Applicability of the principle of res judicata.
3. Legal standing and constitution of the trusts involved.
4. Ownership and management of educational institutions.
5. Validity of assignment deeds.
6. Proper valuation of the suit claim and payment of court fees.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:
The primary issue was whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. Section 53 states that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction over matters required to be decided by authorities under the Act. However, Section 53A carves out an exception, allowing disputes regarding the constitution of educational agencies or school committees to be referred to a Civil Court. The Court held that disputes over the title to immovable property must be adjudicated in Civil Court. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts cannot be ousted unless explicitly stated in the statute, and Section 53A explicitly allows Civil Courts to decide on disputes regarding educational agencies.

Applicability of Res Judicata:
The principle of res judicata was another significant issue. The earlier suit (O.S. No.459 of 1991) had determined that the First Appellant was an agent of Tapovanam and that Tapovanam was the educational agency of the schools. This finding was binding on the parties in subsequent litigation. The Court noted that the doctrine of res judicata aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and accords finality to an issue already decided. The Court found that the earlier judgment constituted res judicata, as the issues and parties were the same, and the matter had been conclusively determined.

Legal Standing and Constitution of the Trusts:
The Court examined whether the trusts involved were legally constituted. The earlier suit had found that the Appellant No.2 Trust was not legally constituted and did not exist. This finding was upheld in subsequent appeals. The Court reiterated that the Appellant No.1 was only an agent of Tapovanam and had no independent right over the properties.

Ownership and Management of Educational Institutions:
The ownership and management of the educational institutions were contested. The Court upheld the finding that Tapovanam was the owner and educational agency of the institutions. The First Appellant's claim that he founded the institutions with his own money was rejected. The Court noted that all official records and documents stood in the name of Tapovanam, and the First Appellant acted as its agent.

Validity of Assignment Deeds:
The validity of assignment deeds dated 22.5.1987 and 15.7.1989 was questioned. The Court found that these deeds were not enforceable against Tapovanam, as the earlier suit had already determined that the First Appellant had no right to assign the properties.

Proper Valuation of Suit Claim and Payment of Court Fees:
The issue of whether the suit claim was properly valued and whether the correct court fee was paid was also considered. The Court found no merit in the Appellants' contention that the suit should be dismissed for non-compliance with Order 31 Rule 2 CPC, as this issue was not raised before the trial court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, confirming that Tapovanam was the owner and educational agency of the disputed institutions and that the principle of res judicata applied. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted by Sections 53 and 53A of the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the earlier judgments were affirmed.

← Previous Next →