SAWAN DARBAR ASHRAM KENGERI BANGALORE Vs. ALUR GURUBASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the respondents learned Advocate.

(2.) THIS is a case in which a group of persons who claim that they are interested in the welfare and management of the ashram, have instituted a suit wherein they have applied for leave to sue under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. They contend that for all intents and purposes, the institution is a constructive Trust and they further contend that according to them, the Trust is not being run properly. They have given certain reasons for the charges levelled by them and they contend therefore, that the Court must frame a scheme and ensure that the properties of the institution are safeguarded and furthermore, that it is properly and correctly administered. The respondents had contested the grant of sanction and they had taken up various contentions, one of which was that the institution is not a mutt or a Trust and secondly, that no case has been made out for the grant of sanction. The learned trial judge has held that prima facie, it does appear that the institution would come within the ambit of Section 92, Civil procedure Code and furthermore, that this is a case in which, having regard to the reliefs, sanction ought to be granted. That order is the subject-matter of this civil revision petition.

(3.) THE petitioners' learned Advocate submitted, that his clients have not filed the written statement in the main proceeding and that they have not dealt elaborately with everything stated in the plaint, but that in their objection statement, they have very clearly made out the case that this is not a situation that qualifies for the grant of sanction. He submits that there is a clear-cut point of law involved in these proceedings namely, the basic issue as to whether assuming everything that the plaintiffs have pointed out is correct, a court should straightaway grant sanction or whether under the law, it is obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to the concerned authorities who are specifically set up for this purpose and only thereafter, if the need arises, exercise jurisdiction. In this regard, the learned Advocate has. submitted that Section 40 of the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927 read with Sections 40-A and 40-B make it very clear that Courts ought not to exercise jurisdiction in the first instance, as an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved party by way of an approach to the authorities who are specifically set up for purposes of redressal of such grievances. The learned Advocate has placed strong reliance on a recent judgment of this Court in civil Revision Petition No. 562 of 1990, dated 14-8-1996 wherein my brother Rajaratnam, J. , has upheld this position in law by holding that whereas it is true that the jurisdiction of the Civil courts is not completely ousted, that the scheme of the law is that complaints in respect of mismanagement or negligence etc. , must in the first instance be enquired into by the Designated authorities and appropriate action taken by them. The petitioners' learned Advocate submits that in this background, the learned trial Judge was certainly in error in having straight away granted sanction, whereas the correct procedure would have been to direct the plaintiffs to the Designated authorities and not to have entertained the suit.