VIDYAPAYAONIDHI THEERTHA Vs. G V R ACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition arises out of miscellaneous proceedings filed by the respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The contention raised before the trial Court was that the Institution in respect of which reliefs under Section 92 C.P.C. were sought for being a Muzrai Institution, and the allegations in the proposed plaint being the matters falling within the scope of Sections 26 and 27 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 ('Act' for short), in view of Sections 40 and 40A of the Act the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This objection was overruled and against that order this revision petition is filed.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court gave a categorical finding that the institution was a Muzrai Institution and was covered by Ss.26 and 27 of the Act. However it held that remedies both under the Act as well as Section 92 C.P.C. were available and this finding of the trial court did not take note of the fact that Section 40 was a bar to the Institution of proceedings or suits except in the manner allowed in the Act. It was further submitted that the manner in which a proceeding in a Civil Court could be instituted was as provided under Sections 21 and 40A of the Act. Therefore, it was contended that the trial Court was entirely wrong and the order needs revision.

(3.) In answer, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that Section 40 or 40A of the Act is not a bar. Under Section 92 of the Code it is certainly permissible to file a suit even without invoking Sections 26 or 27 of the Act and therefore the suit was maintainable. It was also submitted that if for any reasons this court were come to the conclusion that such a proceeding was not permissible, Sections 40 and 40A of the Act come in direct conflict with the provisions of Section 92 C.P.C. and therefore in view of Art.254 of the Constitution Central Act prevails over the State Act. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the two decisions of this Court, one reported in the case of Subbiah & Two Others Vs. Venkatagiryappa 1940(18) Mys. L.J.549_ and the other is Gurubasavaiah Vs. Katikere Linge Gowda, 1961 Mys.S.L.J. 708