Concurrent jurisdiction for public trust suits preserved where a special civil procedure provision overrides general pecuniary limits.

Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was construed as a self-contained special provision for suits concerning public charitable or religious trusts. The phrase "or any other court empowered by the State Government" was read as creating an alternative forum, not replacing the District Court, so a notified subordinate court and the District Court both retained concurrent jurisdiction. General territorial rules under sections 15 to 20 of the Code and pecuniary limits under the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act were held inapplicable to this special jurisdiction. The challenge to the District Court's jurisdiction therefore failed, and the suit was directed to proceed there.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a District Court in Tamil Nadu retains jurisdiction to try a suit relating to public charitable or religious trust even after the State Government has empowered subordinate courts to entertain such suits, and whether pecuniary limits under the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act affect such jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 92 was construed according to its plain language, which permits institution of a suit either in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other court empowered by the State Government. The word "or" was held to denote an alternative and not a substitution. The provision was treated as self-contained for suits relating to public trusts, so the general rules in sections 15 to 20 of the Code and the pecuniary limits under section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act were held inapplicable to jurisdiction under section 92. The notification empowering subordinate judges did not divest the District Court of jurisdiction; both courts were found to have concurrent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The District Court continued to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 92, along with the notified subordinate court, and pecuniary value did not control that jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned view on lack of jurisdiction was rejected, and the suit was directed to proceed in the District Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory provision expressly confers jurisdiction on the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or any other court empowered by the State Government, the notified court does not replace the District Court; both courts have concurrent jurisdiction, and general pecuniary-jurisdiction provisions do not apply if the special provision is self-contained.

---