2010 (1) TMI 1209 - SC - Indian Laws

District Court in Tamil Nadu Upholds Jurisdiction for Public Charity Suits despite Notification Empowering Subordinate Judges.

Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust & Ors. Versus A.G. Syed Mohideen & Ors.

The District Court in Tamil Nadu retained jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for suits involving public charities, despite the ... Suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - jurisdiction of courts with reference to suits - Whether a District Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, does not have jurisdiction to try a suit u/s 92 of the Code? - State Government Notification No. GOM No.727 - The respondents instituted a suit on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore against the appellants u/s 92 of Code, seeking a direction to the second appellant to repay all the amounts spent by him after 20.6.2005 contrary to the terms of the supplementary deed of Trust, and also to convene the Trust meeting for approval of the income and expenditure and other consequential reliefs. HELD THAT:- In view of the express provisions of section 92 specifying the courts which will have jurisdiction to entertain suits under that section, neither the provisions of sections 15 to 20 of the Code nor the provisions of section 12 of the Civil Courts Act will apply to such suits. Section 92 is a self contained provision, and conferment of jurisdiction in regard to suits under that section does not depend upon the value of the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, insofar as the suits u/s 92 are concerned, the District Courts and Sub- ordinate Courts will have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits. We find that the learned District Judge had held that he had jurisdiction because the value of the subject matter was ₹ 10 lakhs, apparently keeping in view, section 12 of the Civil Courts Act. We make it clear that the pecuniary limits mentioned in section 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits u/s 92 of the Code. In fact, if section 12 of the Civil Courts Act is applied to decide the jurisdiction of courts with reference to suits u/s 92 of the Code, it will then lead to the following anomalous position: The District Court will have jurisdiction if the value of the subject matter exceeds ₹ 5 lakhs. The Sub-ordinate Court will have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter exceeds ₹ 1 lakh but does not exceed to ₹ 5 lakhs. That would mean that a suit u/s 92 of the Code, where the subject matter does not exceeds ₹ 1 lakh, cannot be filed in any court as section 92 confers jurisdiction only on District Court and Sub-ordinate Courts. This obviously was not intended. Be that as it may. We do not therefore approve the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in PS Subramanian which ignores the earlier decisions of that court and decisions of other High Courts which have consistently taken the view that where jurisdiction is also conferred on any other court by the state government by a notification (u/s 92 of the Code or under any similar provision), then that court and the District Court will have concurrent jurisdiction. Appeal is dismissed. The learned District Judge will proceed to decide the suit expeditiously. Issues:Jurisdiction of District Court under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Tamil Nadu.Analysis:1. Background: The case involved a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code by respondents against appellants, seeking repayment and other reliefs. Appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court based on a High Court decision.2. Interpretation of Section 92: Section 92 deals with public charities, allowing suits in the Principal Civil Court or any other court empowered by the State Government. The appellants argued that the District Court lost jurisdiction post a government notification empowering Subordinate Judges.3. Principles of Interpretation: The court emphasized interpreting statutes naturally without altering words unless leading to ambiguity. The plain reading of Section 92 suggests suits can be filed in District Court or Subordinate Court.4. Use of 'Or' in Section 92: The court rejected the notion of 'or' being substitutive, clarifying that District Courts retain jurisdiction unless the State Government empowers other courts. The legislative intent was for District Courts to handle such suits.5. Jurisdictional Limits: The court clarified that pecuniary limits specified in the Civil Courts Act do not apply to Section 92 suits. District and Subordinate Courts have concurrent jurisdiction irrespective of the subject matter's value.6. Precedents and Conclusion: The court disagreed with a High Court judgment and cited previous decisions supporting concurrent jurisdiction for District and other empowered courts. The appeal was dismissed, directing the District Judge to proceed with the suit promptly.This detailed analysis clarifies the interpretation of Section 92, the role of District Courts in handling public charity suits, and the concurrent jurisdiction of District and Subordinate Courts in such matters, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.