Question: Discuss the meaning of the expression 'Suit of Civil Nature' as described in section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Plaintiff T', who is a Christian by religion, challenged her ex-communication, by filing of a plaint in the civil court. The plaint is resisted by arguing that 'mere question of religion’ is not a 'suit of civil nature'. Decide with the help of judicial precedents
Question: Discuss the meaning of the expression 'Suit of Civil Nature' as described in section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Plaintiff T', who is a Christian by religion, challenged her ex-communication, by filing of a plaint in the civil court. The plaint is resisted by arguing that 'mere question of religion’ is not a 'suit of civil nature'. Decide with the help of judicial precedents
Answer:
1. Section 9 CPC: “Suit of Civil Nature” — Statutory Framework
“The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognisance is either expressly or impliedly barred.”
Two explanatory clauses (added by the 1976 Amendment) widen the compass:
| Explanation | Key words | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|
| I | “Right to property or to an office”— | If a dispute about a religious office or honour is capable of valuation in money or carries material advantages (stipend, management of offerings, burial rights, pew‑rent, etc.), it is civil. |
| II | “Even if the decision turns on rites or ceremonies … it is still a suit of civil nature.” | Overrules the earlier narrow view that matters “purely religious” are outside civil court jurisdiction. |
Does the plaintiff seek adjudication of a private right of a determinable nature (status, property, office, or other tangible advantage)?
If yes, the suit is civil; the fact that the court must examine religious doctrine does not oust jurisdiction.
2. Leading Precedents Explaining the Expression
| Case | Ratio / Holding | How it refines § 9 |
|---|---|---|
| P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, (1995) 2 SCC 686 | Suits over membership, ex‑communication, election of office‑bearers and administration of church property are of civil nature; civil courts can decide even if questions of canon law arise. | Confirms Explanation II and overrules the “mere religious question” plea. |
| Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1962 SC 198 | Declaration of the right to succeed to the headship of a Mutt—though steeped in theology—is civil because the office carries management of endowed property. | Laid down the “material benefit or status” test. |
| Venkata Subba Iyengar v. Tirumalai Iyengar, AIR 1936 PC 1 (Privy Council) | A suit to establish the right to perform certain temple worship was maintainable; religious rites intertwined with pecuniary or status benefits make the matter civil. | Early affirmation of a broad, pragmatic construction. |
| Ganduri Koteshwaramma v. Chakiri Yanadi, (2011) 9 SCC 788 | Although mainly on amendment of preliminary decrees, the Court reiterated that civil jurisdiction extends wherever enforcement of a legal right is sought, even if religion is implicated. | Re‑endorses the liberal approach. |
3. Application to the Problem: Christian ‘T’ Challenges Ex‑communication
-
Nature of the relief sought
-
Ex‑communication from a church directly affects the plaintiff’s civil status:
membership, right to participate in sacraments, vote in the parish council, be buried in the church cemetery, share in church‑managed charitable benefits, etc. -
These are “civil consequences” recognised by courts (P.M.A. Metropolitan, supra).
-
-
Defendant’s Objection: “Mere question of religion”
-
Explanation II and the above precedents reject this objection.
-
A plea that the dispute is “purely religious” will succeed only if the adjudication does not touch any civil right or obligation—a very narrow class (e.g., deciding whether a particular mantra is religiously orthodox without affecting anyone’s legal status).
-
-
Jurisdictional Consequence
-
The civil court must entertain the suit unless another statute expressly bars it (there is none).
-
Ecclesiastical tribunals may have moral authority, but their decisions are subject to review where they impinge upon civil rights (Article 25’s guarantee of religious freedom is also subject to “public order, morality and health” and other fundamental rights).
-
4. Conclusion / Decision
The plaint is maintainable.
Ex‑communication, by depriving ‘T’ of concrete civil incidents of church membership, gives rise to a “suit of civil nature” under § 9 CPC. The attempt to brand it a “mere question of religion” is contrary to Explanations I & II and the ratio in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma and Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja. The civil court therefore has jurisdiction to try the suit and adjudicate the validity of the ex‑communication.
This reasoning accords with the long‑settled principle that civil courts wield wide and residuary jurisdiction, surrendering it only where the legislature has clearly and expressly said so.
Comments
Post a Comment