2005 (10) TMI 608 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
2. Applicability of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927.
3. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters covered by the Mysore Act.
4. Serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and mismanagement of trust properties.
5. Procedural aspects regarding the rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
The Appellants opposed the grant of leave for the suit under Section 92 of the CPC, which was granted on 10th November 1999. The Appellants did not initially contend the suit's maintainability under the Mysore Act. The trial court dismissed the application for rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the applicability of the Mysore Act needed to be decided based on evidence. The Supreme Court noted that Section 40A of the Mysore Act explicitly allows suits under Section 92 of the CPC, 1908, even if an order has been passed by the Muzrai Officer or the Government.

2. Applicability of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927:
Mr. Venugopal argued that the Mysore Act is a complete code and that all matters should be addressed through an enquiry under Section 17 and orders under Section 18 of the Mysore Act. However, the Supreme Court found that the Mysore Act had been repealed in 2003, and even if the application under Order VII Rule 11 was allowed, the Plaint would only need to be presented again to the same court, making it an idle formality.

3. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters covered by the Mysore Act:
The Appellants contended that under Section 40 of the Mysore Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was barred. However, the Supreme Court held that the enquiry under Section 17 of the Mysore Act is a summary enquiry and does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Furthermore, Section 40A of the Mysore Act explicitly states that a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is not barred, reinforcing the Civil Court's jurisdiction in this matter.

4. Serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and mismanagement of trust properties:
The Plaint contained serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and diversion of trust properties, which the Supreme Court noted could not be adequately addressed in a summary enquiry by a Muzrai Officer. These allegations required a detailed examination by a court, with issues framed and evidence considered, justifying the trial court's decision to hear the case.

5. Procedural aspects regarding the rejection of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC:
The Supreme Court observed that once leave to file the suit was granted after hearing the parties, the question of rejecting the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 did not arise. The application for rejection should have been made before or during the opposition to the grant of leave. Additionally, the Supreme Court agreed with the principle that procedural laws in force at the time of trial should be applied, and since the Mysore Act was repealed, the court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the trial court was correct in its decision to hear the case due to the serious nature of the allegations and the procedural aspects involved. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year. The deletion of Respondent No. 4, the concerned Trust, by the Appellants was also noted as a significant procedural error, as the Trust was a necessary party to the dispute.