Jurisdiction over removal of a religious endowment trustee requires strict compliance with the special statutory route; removal order set aside.

The District Court's ordinary civil jurisdiction did not extend to removing a trustee and Sarpanch of a religious endowment unless the special statutory route was properly invoked. Under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, jurisdiction lay only with the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or another court specifically empowered by the State Government, and no such empowerment of the Additional District Judge was shown. The application was also not brought under that enactment, and the statutory machinery under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, including the Registrar's prior steps, had not been followed. The removal order was therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to remove the appellant from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of the religious endowment in proceedings taken in execution or under the general jurisdiction of the court.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to remove the appellant from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of the religious endowment in proceedings taken in execution or under the general jurisdiction of the court.

Analysis: The power of the District Court under the Central Provinces and Berar Courts Act, 1917, was confined to its ordinary civil jurisdiction and did not extend to a special remedy under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, unless the statutory conditions for invoking that Act were satisfied. Under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, the relevant court had to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or another court specifically empowered by the State Government. No such empowerment of the Additional District Judge was shown. The application was also not instituted under the special enactment. The provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, likewise required recourse through the statutory machinery, including the Registrar's prior steps, which had not been complied with when the application was made. The removal order was therefore made without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The court had no jurisdiction to remove the appellant in the manner adopted, and the order removing him could not be sustained.

---