CRP/739/2010 of Sri Mahankalamma Talli Ammavari Temple Vs Kolapalli Venkat Siva Prasad on 30 December 2011

ORDER :-

This revision is filed questioning the orders dated 15.2.2009 in I.A. No.934 of 2009 in O.S. No. 483 of 2008 by the First Additional Junior CivilJudge, Machilipatnam in allowing the application filed under Section 9 and151 of CPC to reject the suit.

The revision petitioners are plaintiffs. They filed a suit to declare that S ri Mahankalamma Talli Temple, Mukkollu to be managed only by thefounder paternal family members of Kotamma i.e., by Sammeta familymembers and consequently to grant a permanent injunction restraining thedefendants, their followers, men and others from ever interfering with themanagement by the paternal family members of Kotamma in managing theplaintiff temple. In the affidavit filed along with this revision, it is stated thatearlier the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A No. 1047 of 2008 and initiallyex-parte injunction was granted and the same has been later made absolute,against which order an appeal in C.M.A. No. 7 of 2009 was filed by therespondents and the said appeal was dismissed by the lower AppellateCourt. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application in I.A No. 1130 of2008 under Section 9 and Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC and Section151 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 (for short the Act, 1987). The Court below after considering thejudgments of this Court in Teki Venkata Ratnam and Ors Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada[[1]]and the Secretary,Department of Finance (Revenue & Insurance )Vs. Murali Tobacco Co, Guntur[[2]]dismissed the said application by order dated 24.2.2009,observing that it is not justifiable to reject the plaint at the threshold andwhether the plaintiff is founder family member as claimed by him can only be decided after the trial of the suit. The matter was carried in appeal in CMANo. 8 of 2009 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Krishna atMachilipatnam and the lower Appellate Court, on reappreciation of the matter,framed the following points for its consideration;

1) Whether the appeal is maintainable ?

2) Whether the suit before the trial Court is sustainable ?

The lower Appellate Court, on point no.2, after referring to thejudgments of this Court in the Secretary, Department of Finance (citedsupra), Bandla Raghavendra Rao Vs. Assistant Commissioner,Endowments, Vijayawada, Krishna District and others[[3]]and K.L.V.Prasada Rao and others Vs. K.Venkateswara Goud and other[[4]]held that the civil suit is not maintainable since the subject matter falls withinthe ambit of Act 30 of 1987. Further, the lower Appellate Court, answered thepoint no.1 against the appellants holding that appeal is not provided bysection 104 of CPC and Order 43 of CPC to question the order made in anapplication under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. While holding so, dismissed theappeal. Pursuant to the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court onpoint no.2, the defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 934 of 2009 underSection 9 and Section 151 of CPC to reject the suit. The Court below, byorder under revision dated 15.2.2010 allowed the said application, holdingthat the said Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute pending before itin terms of Section 151 of Act 30 of 1987. Hence, the present revision.

The learned counsel for petitioners mainly contended that the bar toentertain the suit only applies to registered religious institutions and it doesnot apply to un-registered institutions.

Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

For the sake of convenience, Section 1 subsection 3(a) and 151 of Act30 of 1987 is extracted as under; Section 1 (3) (a):-- “It applies to all public charitable institutions andendowments, whether registered or not, in accordancewith the provisions of this Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954.”

Section 151:--

“No suit or legal proceeding in respect of administration or management of an institution orendowment or any other matters of dispute fordetermining or deciding for which provision is made inthis Act shall be instituted in any Court of low exceptunder and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.”

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below hasrightly allowed the application, particularly in view of the specific bar underSection 151 of the Act 30 of 1987 which applies to un-registered religiousinstitutions also. Thus, the only course open for the petitioners is toapproach the concerned authority under the Act for redressal of its grievance.

There are no merits in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

_____________

V ESWARAIAH,J

DATE:30.12.2011tvk

[1]1996 (4) ALD 643 DB1996 (4) ALD 643 DB

[2]1999 (5) ALT 2251999 (5) ALT 225

[3]2008 (1) ALD 512008 (1) ALD 51

[4]2008 (2) ALT 4552008 (2) ALT 455

C.R.P. NO. 739 of 2010

DT.30.12.2011