Civil court jurisdiction survives trust disputes involving fraud and forgery despite a summary enquiry under local trust law.

A summary administrative enquiry under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 did not oust civil court jurisdiction over serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and diversion of trust property, because such disputes required regular civil trial and evidence; the suit under Section 92 CPC was therefore not barred. Once leave to sue had already been granted after contest, rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the same objection was impermissible. After repeal of the Mysore Act, the suit remained maintainable under the procedural law then in force, and the trust was a necessary and proper party to a dispute concerning its management and property.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the civil suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was barred by the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927; (ii) whether rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was warranted after leave to sue had already been granted; and (iii) whether the suit could proceed after the repeal of the Mysore Act and in the absence of the trust as a party.

Issue (i): whether the civil suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was barred by the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927.

Analysis: The provisions of the Mysore Act contemplated a summary enquiry by the Muzrai Officer into gross mismanagement and related matters. Such a summary process was held inadequate for adjudicating serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and diversion of trust property, which required a regular civil trial and evidence. Section 40 of the Mysore Act was not read as excluding the civil court's jurisdiction for such disputes, and Section 40A was treated as preserving suits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by the Mysore Act.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was warranted after leave to sue had already been granted.

Analysis: Leave to institute the suit had already been granted after contest. In that situation, an application to reject the plaint on the same objection was held to be impermissible. The objection should have been taken before leave was granted or at the stage when leave was opposed.

Conclusion: Rejection of the plaint was not warranted.

Issue (iii): whether the suit could proceed after the repeal of the Mysore Act and in the absence of the trust as a party.

Analysis: Once the Mysore Act had been repealed, the court was to apply the procedural law in force at the time of trial, and the suit remained maintainable. The trust was also a necessary and proper party because the dispute directly concerned its management and property; its deletion from the array of parties was an additional reason against the appeal.

Conclusion: The suit could proceed and the deletion of the trust supported dismissal of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the suit was directed to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary administrative enquiry under a trust statute does not oust civil court jurisdiction for serious allegations of fraud or forgery, and procedural law applicable at the time of trial governs the maintainability of the suit.

---