The Allahabad High Court observed that a Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. and Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 in the State of Uttar Pradesh can only be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, that is, the Court of the District Judge, and not in any other Court.
Brief Facts:
The petitioners filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) under Sections 91 and 92 of CPC for a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction, praying for the constitution of an eleven-member Committee and appointment as manager for the Shri Ram Janki Mandir. The same was dismissed as non-maintainable, and it was held that the petitioner did not file any trust deed, and the plaint did not disclose the identity of the trustees or manager of the trust.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Shri Ram Laksham Janikiji Virajman’ Temple had been constructed by their donations and they being the founders and worshippers, are entitled to file the suit in public interest. It was further submitted that existence of any trust-deed is not essential for admission of the suit.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent filed objections that there is no Trust and the plaintiffs are neither trustees nor beneficiaries of any trust and, therefore, the Suit filed under Section 92 C.P.C. is not maintainable.
Observations of the court:
The court observed a combined reading of Sections 92(1) and (2) of C.P.C. with Sections 2, 14, 15, and 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 clearly shows that a suit under Section 92 CPC can be filed in case of an alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of Janki Prasad vs Kuber Singh, wherein the Allahabad High Court held that the absence of a written document or entries is not conclusive proof of the non-existence of a trust and a trust can be created orally as well, with the property endowed being used for charitable and religious purposes for which the trust was created.
Further, the court stated that the trial Court committed a patent illegality in dismissing the suit at the stage of admission because a trust deed had not been filed and stated that non-disclosure of the trustees or trust manager, no bye-laws having been filed, and the relief sought by the plaintiff not falling under Sections 91 and 91 of CPC were not sufficient reasons for dismissal of the suit. The court further observed that the suit could not have been admitted by the Civil Judge as the aforementioned Sections state that such a suit must be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or any other court empowered by the State Government, and this phrase does not include a Civil Judge, held the Court.
The court then relied on the decision in the case of Muhammad Ali Khan vs Ahmad Ali Khan, wherein it was held that a District Judge as a principal civil court of original jurisdiction has the power to nominate a mutually on application and further, in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain vs Gaurav Jain, wherein it was held that a principal civil court of original jurisdiction as stated in Section 92 of C.P.C. and Section 2 of the 1863 Act would mean the District Judge and the Additional District Judge.
The decision of the Court:
The court held that the Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed under Section 92 C.P.C. or under the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and, therefore, the observations made by the Civil Judge in the impugned order are without jurisdiction and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Jyantri Prasad and Ors. vs. Shri Ram Janki Lakshman Ji Virajman and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
Case No.: Matters under Article 227 No. 4294 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ram Shiromani Pandey
Advocate for the Respondent: Saurabh Srivastava, Girish Chandra Sinha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
