.webp "Allahabad High Court Clarifies Civil Judge Jurisdiction in Religious Endowment Cases under Section 92 CPC")
Background of the Case
The case involved a dispute concerning the management and administration of a religious endowment. A group of plaintiffs filed a suit seeking relief under Section 92 of the CPC, which deals with the legal procedure for suits concerning public trusts, particularly those involving religious or charitable institutions. The plaintiffs claimed that the endowment in question was being mismanaged and sought various remedies, including the removal of trustees and the appointment of new ones.
The defendant trustees challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that the civil judge did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. They contended that the matter should be adjudicated under the provisions of the Religious Endowment Act, and not under Section 92 of the CPC. The central issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether a civil judge had the authority to hear the case under Section 92 or if the case should be referred to another judicial body under the Religious Endowment Act.
Court’s Interpretation of Section 92 CPC
The court, while interpreting Section 92 of the CPC, reaffirmed that the provision grants civil courts the jurisdiction to deal with matters related to the administration of public trusts, including religious endowments. Section 92 allows two or more persons to file a suit with the consent of the Advocate General, seeking relief against trustees who are alleged to be mismanaging or improperly administering a trust. The section empowers civil courts to remove trustees, appoint new trustees, or grant other necessary relief to protect the trust's purpose.
The court clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 92 is broad enough to encompass disputes related to religious endowments, as long as the primary issue is the administration of the trust. The bench pointed out that Section 92 ensures public interest is protected when it comes to the proper administration of trusts, especially those serving religious or charitable purposes.
Distinction Between Section 92 CPC and Religious Endowment Act
One of the critical issues addressed by the court was the distinction between the CPC’s provisions and the Religious Endowment Act. The defendants argued that since the case involved a religious endowment, it should be governed solely by the Religious Endowment Act. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the two legal frameworks are not mutually exclusive.
The court emphasized that while the Religious Endowment Act governs specific aspects of religious institutions, Section 92 of the CPC provides a broader mechanism for addressing mismanagement of public trusts, including religious endowments. The court clarified that civil courts could exercise jurisdiction under Section 92 even in cases involving religious institutions, provided the conditions laid out in the section are fulfilled.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling provides clarity on the jurisdiction of civil judges in cases involving religious endowments under Section 92 of the CPC. By reaffirming the authority of civil courts to adjudicate such matters, the court has ensured that public trusts, including religious ones, can be held accountable for mismanagement through proper judicial scrutiny. This decision underscores the importance of Section 92 in safeguarding the interests of public trusts and maintaining their proper administration, regardless of whether they fall under religious or charitable categories.
.webp&description=Allahabad High Court Clarifies Civil Judge Jurisdiction in Religious Endowment Cases under Section 92 CPC){kind=link}
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.