S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) THE question as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted in terms of Sections 53 and 53A of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in A.S. No.568 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated 7.8.1998 passed in O.S. No.1254 of 1994 by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapally decreeing the plaintiff-respondents' suit, was dismissed. BACKGROUND FACTS :
(2.) THE first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as Tapovanam') is a registered Society. It was founded by Swamy Chidbavananda. It has been functioning since 1942. THE said Swamy Chidbavananda used to propagate the ideals of Swamy Ramakrishna Param Hans nCd Swamy Vivekananda. It started func- loning at Ooty and later shifted to "hiruparaithurari. A number of branches vere established at various places, namely, thiruvedagam, Courtallam, Chitraichavadi, thirunelveli, Kodaikanal, Ramanathampuram, Rameshwaram, Salem and Karur. Educational institutions and ashrams as well as dispensaries were established at all these places. Swamy Chidbavananda during his life time acquired various properties by collecting funds from the public, which partook the character of trust property. The first appellant herein was an employee in a mill at Coimbatore. He joined Tapovanam' as an ordinary member. He became sanyasi in 1970 whereupon he was assigned a job at Thiruvedagam and later transferred to Karur in the year 1976. 'Tapovanam' established a number of educational institutions at Karur from donations collected from the public as also with the funds available through the trusts called Vairaperumal Trust and Tathinagireswarar Trust, the object whereof was to dedicate their properties to Tapovanam to enable it to establish educational institutions. It is not in dispute that in the year 1987, the first appellant herein got a trust registered known as 'Sri Ramakrishna Ashramam Trust'. A claim was set up by him to the effect that all the institutions at Karur had been founded by him from his own money as well as the money collected by him individually. He filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Karur. marked as O.S. No.251 of 1991. for a declaration that he along with other members were the owners as well as founders of the educational agencies of the six educational institutions mentioned in the plaint. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn whereupon he filed another suit, marked as O.S. No.1368 of 1990 in the Court of the District Munsif at Karur, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karur and re-numbered as O.S. No.459 of 1991, the subject-matter whereof was two educational institutions, namely, Sri Vivekananda Higher Secondary School for Boys and Sri Sarada Girls Higher Secondary School at Pasupathi- palayam. In the said suit a question arose as regard the status of the first appellant vis-a-vis the first respondent herein (Tapovanam) as regard 'educational agency' in terms of the provisions of the said Act.
(3.) IN the said suit the trial Judge framed the following issues : (i) Whether the plaintiff no. 1-trust was in management and whether it was in existence? (ii) Whether it was legally constituted? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit Schedule INstitutions? (iv) Whether the defendant no.1 was not the Educational Agency of the Plaint Schedule Schools? (v) Whether the plaintiff no.2 functioned as an agent of the defendant no.1? (vi) Whether the defendant no.1 had no RIGht over the Plaint Schedule Schools? (Vii) Whether the suit was maintainable? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs were entitled the declaration prayed for? (ix) To what relief the plaintiffs were enti- tled to? The said suit was dismissed by a judg- ment and order dated 30.4.1992, by the court of Subordinate Judge, Karur, inter alia, holding : (i) The appellant no.2 Trust was not legally constituted and was never in existence. (ii) The appellant no. 1 was an agent of tapovanam and Tapovanam was the owner and Educational Agency of the schools in question. ;