- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of A.P v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao (Dead) By Lrs. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs, Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kantha Rao, instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that land in R.S. No. 400 with a building (Municipal No. 15/184) at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam, measuring 17 acres 61 cents—of which they claimed half share—was not subject to any public or charitable trust, nor governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. They also challenged Government Order G.O. Ms. No. 1501 dated 12-7-1966 (sic) and sought consequential reliefs.
The trial court framed numerous issues—including the validity of an earlier notification, the character of the property, estoppel, adverse possession, jurisdiction after enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (“the Act”), and the conclusiveness of an administrative order—and decided all of them against the plaintiffs. Two first appeals to the High Court were dismissed. The plaintiffs then filed Letters Patent Appeals.
During pendency of the suit, Defendants 4-12 invoked Section 77 of the 1966 Act (OA No. 50 of 1969). The Deputy Commissioner declared that the property was private, not an endowment. No appeal or statutory suit under Section 78 followed, rendering the order final. Relying on that statutory finality, the High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals and set aside the trial court’s decree. The present appeals challenge that High Court decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966—unappealed and therefore final—bars the civil court from re-adjudicating the nature of the property.
- Whether the proceedings under Section 77 of the Act operate as res judicata against the pre-existing civil suit concerning the same question of title and endowment.
- Whether the civil suit itself could be treated as a statutory suit under Section 78 of the Act for challenging the Deputy Commissioner’s order.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The statutory order under Section 77 does not affect the earlier civil suit (OS No. 11 of 1967) because the question of title was already seized of by the civil court.
- Since both the civil court and the Deputy Commissioner are competent fora, the Section 77 order cannot operate as res judicata.
- If a suit is required under Section 78 to contest the Section 77 order, the existing civil suit ought to be construed as such a statutory suit.
Respondents' Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78; (1968) 3 SCR 662 | Principles governing exclusion of civil-court jurisdiction when a statute provides finality to orders of a special tribunal and an adequate alternative remedy. | The Court applied the Dhulabhai test to hold that the Act expressly/ncessarily impliedly excludes civil-court jurisdiction because it offers an adequate statutory remedy (appeal or suit under Sections 77-78), thereby rendering the Deputy Commissioner’s unchallenged order conclusive. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Section 9 CPC presumes civil-court jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly excluded. The Court adopted the two-fold Dhulabhai test: (i) legislative intent to exclude; and (ii) adequacy of the alternative remedy.
2. The Act confers competence on the Deputy Commissioner to decide whether property is an endowment (Section 77(1)(d)) and grants finality to that decision unless an appeal or suit under Section 78 is instituted. Thus, legislative intent to exclude civil-court jurisdiction is implicit and alternative remedies are adequate.
3. The civil suit preceded the Section 77 proceedings and therefore cannot be treated as a Section 78 suit. Once the Deputy Commissioner’s order became final, the identical question before the civil court was statutorily concluded.
4. No allegation was made that the Deputy Commissioner violated mandatory provisions or fundamental judicial procedure. Consequently, the statutory finality clause is fully operative.
5. The High Court correctly set aside the trial court’s decree because the civil court lacked jurisdiction to reassess a matter conclusively determined under Section 77.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the Deputy Commissioner’s unchallenged order under Section 77 conclusively determines that the property is private and not an endowment. The immediate effect is that the plaintiffs’ declaratory relief fails, and the litigation ends in favour of Defendants 4-12. The judgment turns on statutory finality and does not create new precedent beyond reiterating the Dhulabhai principles on exclusion of civil-court jurisdiction.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— These appeals arise out of a suit brought by Manjeti Venkata Nagabhushana Rao and Manjeti Lakshmi Kantha Rao against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others for a declaration that the property comprised in RS No. 400 with a building thereon bearing Municipal No. 15/184 at Chilakalapudi, Masulipatnam measuring 17ac.61 cents in which the plaintiffs have a half share is not subject to any public or charitable trust or endowment or provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 that the order GOMs No. 1501 dated 12-7-1979 (sic) is void; and for certain other consequential reliefs. For purposes of convenience we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit.
2. The trial court framed several issues as to whether (1) the notification dated 28-7-1960 is valid and binding on the plaintiffs; (2) the suit property is subject to any charitable trust or endowment; (3) the aggrieved parties are estopped from questioning the ownership; (4) any of the parties have perfected their title by adverse possession; (5) the court has jurisdiction to try the suit after Act 17 of 1966 came into force; (6) the order of the third defendant dated 26-5-1969 in OA No. 50 of 1969 is conclusive and binding on the parties; and (7) any of the parties are estopped from contending that the plaint-schedule property constitutes charitable endowment in view of the order of the third defendant in OA No. 50 of 1969. On all the issues the trial court held against the plaintiffs. Two appeals were filed in the High Court against the judgment of the trial court which were dismissed. Thereupon two letters patent appeals were filed.
3. When the suit was pending in the trial court the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force from 26-1-1967 and Defendants 4 to 12 filed a petition (OA No. 50 of 1969) under Section 77 of the Act before the third defendant in the suit and that petition ended in their favour by holding that the property had been purchased by the applicant and other members of his family in a court auction and they had been enjoying the same for nearly 40 years and no one had questioned their enjoyment on the ground that the property was subject to any public charity or endowment. The third defendant made a declaration that the said property is not public charity or subject to any endowment. That order became final inasmuch as no appeal or suit as contemplated under the Act had been filed. In the circumstances when the order made by the Deputy Commissioner had attained finality and conclusiveness and the matter could not be challenged except in the manner provided under the Act and that course having not been adopted the High Court allowed the letters patent appeals and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Hence this appeal.
4. Three contentions are put forth before us as was done before the High Court in the letters patent appeals. Firstly, that the order under Section 77 of the Act does not affect a decision rendered in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1967 inasmuch as the question of title had been raised in the suit. Secondly, that both the order under Section 77 of the Act and the suit had been decided by a competent authority or court and, therefore, the proceeding under Section 77 of the Act could not operate as res judicata. Lastly, it was contended that to challenge an order made under Section 77 of the Act a suit was required to be filed under Section 78 of the Act, then the court could construe the suit out of which the appeal itself arises as a suit under Section 77 of the Act.
5. The normal rule of law is that civil courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except those of which cognisance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure but such exclusion is not readily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must be in favour of the existence rather than exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil courts to try a civil suit. The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether the legislative intent to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication, and (ii) whether the statute in question provides for adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party aggrieved by an order made under it. In Dhulabhai v. State of M.P AIR 1969 SC 78, (1968) 3 SCR 662 it was noticed that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the Special Tribunals, jurisdiction of the civil courts must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit and such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
6. The suit is prior to initiation of proceedings under Section 77 of the Act and, therefore, the said suit cannot be a suit as contemplated under Section 78 of the Act. The order under Section 77 of the Act is conclusive which determined the issue that the suit property is not subject to public charity or endowment upholding the case of Defendants 4 to 12 that the property is private property and is not an endowment. Such a question could have been decided in a proceeding under Section 77(1)(d) of the Act as to whether any property is an endowment and, if so, whether it is a charitable endowment or a religious endowment. A person aggrieved could file a suit under Section 78 of the Act. Since no such suit was filed the declaration made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 77 of the Act the order made by him concluded the issue whether or not the suit property is a charitable or religious endowment. After the Act came into force the Deputy Commissioner was competent to deal with such a question. The subject-matter in GO No. 1501 which was passed on 12-7-1966, the prayer in the suit in OS No. 11 of 1967 and the decision under Section 77 pertain to the same question whether or not the property was an endowed property. The Deputy Commissioner considered the very question raised in the suit as to the nature of the suit property and held that it is a private property and having concluded as a public charity or endowment that conclusion became final.
7. In the present case, there is no allegation that the Deputy Commissioner had acted contrary to the provisions of the Act or not having followed the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner having followed the due procedure made the order and that order could have been challenged as provided under Section 78 of the Act by way of a suit or by an appeal. When neither of these courses was adopted, the order made by the authority in its special jurisdiction must be held to be conclusive and final.
8. In the circumstances, the view taken by the High Court appears to us to be correct and does not call for interference. In the result, the appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
Alert