Civil court jurisdiction over hereditary Pujari rights was not barred merely because public trust registration proceedings were pending.

Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 does not bar a civil suit unless the relief sought concerns questions the Act requires the designated authority to decide finally. The plaintiffs claimed hereditary Pujari rights, a right to perform Puja, and an injunction against interference; they did not seek a declaration on the existence of a public trust or the character of trust property. Pending registration proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner therefore did not oust civil court jurisdiction, and exclusion of that jurisdiction had to be strictly construed. The suit was held not barred, and the High Court's contrary view was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for declaration of hereditary pujariki rights and injunction was barred by Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 because an inquiry for registration of the temple as a public trust was pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

Analysis: The bar under Section 80 applies only to questions which the Act requires the designated authority to decide and which are made final and conclusive. The plaintiffs sought only a declaration that they were ancestral Pujaris with the right to perform Puja and a consequential injunction against interference. They did not seek a declaration as to the existence of a public trust, the character of any property as trust property, or any other matter falling within the inquiry under Sections 18, 19 and 79. The mere pendency of an application for registration of the temple as a public trust did not, by itself, oust the civil court's jurisdiction. Exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be strictly construed and cannot be inferred from the facts pleaded in this suit.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the High Court was wrong in holding otherwise. The decision on jurisdiction was against the respondents and in favour of the appellants.

---