Judgment : The plaintiff in O.S.No.776 of 1986 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambasamudram, is the appellant. The plaintiff is St.John’s Teacher Training Institute for Women represented by its correspondent S.Javaraj. He filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff/school is a minority school and the order passed by the Educational Authorities on 12. 1985 is not valid and for a direction to the defendants to allow the students to write the examinations. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff-institute was established by S.Jeyaraj on 29. 1985 and he is a Christian by birth. There is no teacher training institute at Veeramanallur, Ambasamudram Taluk within the radius of 32 K.Ms. The women students have to go for a long distance from Ambasamudram in search of teacher training institute. The vocational course which was started in the Higher Secondary Schools is not sufficient to meet the needs of women students. So Jayaraj established the school for the benefit welfare and uplift of women students in his religion. Even women students belonging to other religion also were admitted. Trained and fully qualified teachers were appointed in his institution. 80% of the women are Christians. 40 students were admitted for the academic year 1985-86 and for the year 1986-87 60 students were studying. The school is also running a Hostel and Bible is taught in the school. The correspondent is also running a High School by name St.Johns Middle School and he is also running an English School for the past 10 years. The plaintiff school is protected under Art.30(l) of the Constitution of India. There are eight teachers working in the English Medium School. The defendants have given recognition for similar schools and permitted the students to write the examinations. The rules framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974 have curtailed the rights guaranteed to the plaintiff under the Constitution. The’ plaintiff has remitted the examination fees for the 40students for the examination to be conducted in the month of April, 1987 and sent the application forms along with the challan on 310. 1986 But the 4th defendant has refused to receive the application by stating that the plaintiff/school is not recognised. The defendants pointed out a circular dated 17. The’ plaintiff has remitted the examination fees for the 40students for the examination to be conducted in the month of April, 1987 and sent the application forms along with the challan on 310. 1986 But the 4th defendant has refused to receive the application by stating that the plaintiff/school is not recognised. The defendants pointed out a circular dated 17. 1986 issued by the State Government to the effect that private management schools had no right to conduct the teacher training and so that the students were given an opportunity to join the High School. Therefore, the students of the plaintiff training school were prevented from getting practical training in the elementary school and also in the high schools. The plaintiff has submitted an application under Sec.(l) of Act 29 of 1974 on 30.10.1985 to the second defendant and the second defendant refused to grant recognition in his order dated 12. 1985. The plaintiff was not given an opportunity to represent his case as per Secs.9 and 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974. It is not necessary that the plaintiff has to get prior permission for starting a school. The rules which are framed in the year 1977 arc ultra vires. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit. 2. The defendants filed a written statement raising the following defence. The plain tiff is not a minority institution and the plaintiff is not entitled to train. Prepare and guide pupils for the Government Examinations in Diploma in Teacher Training Education. The defendants do not admit that the manager Jayaraj belongs to minority community. There are already one Government Teacher Training Institute for Women, three aided recognised teacher training institutes for women and a number of higher secondary schools having vocational course in teacher training in Tirunelveli District. The Educational needs of the District are being adequately met by these institutions and therefore there was no necessity to open one such by the plaintiff. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff has got a strength of 40 students for the year 198586and60students for the year 1986-88 and the alleged existence of students. Hostel is also not admitted. As per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, minority schools, which have been opened without the permission of the department shall apply for recognition within three months from the date of opening. Hostel is also not admitted. As per Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grant) Rules, 1977, minority schools, which have been opened without the permission of the department shall apply for recognition within three months from the date of opening. The plaintiff-institute is not entitled to claim recognition and certain conditions for recognition have been prescribed in the above said rules. The application of the plaintiff for recognition was rejected for the reasons stated in the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education. It was noticed by the department that some of the schools for which recognition was refused by the department, run on their own risk and the students of the unrecognised institutions are permitted for teaching practice in the recognised schools. So, a circular was issued to all the inspecting officers not to give permission for students of unrecognised training institutions for teaching practice in the recognised schools. Rules of 1977 do not offend Art.20(l) of Constitution of India and those rules are not ultra vires the Tamil Nadu Act 29 of 1974. There is no mala fide on the part of the defendants in refusing recognition to the plaintiff-institute. The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of valid notice under Sec.80, C.P.C. 3. The plaintiff examined Jayaraj as P.W.I and marked Exs.A-1 to A-27. On the side of the defendants, Thangavelu was examined as D.W.I and no exhibits were marked. The trial Court, after considering the evidence elaborately decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendants filed A.S.No.18 of 1986 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.776 of 1986 dated 12. 1987 and the lower appellate court allowed the appeal with costs and dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law, namely, whether the jurisdiction of the civil court to declare that the particular educational Institution is a minority Institution is barred in view of Sec.53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 5. Hence the plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 4. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law, namely, whether the jurisdiction of the civil court to declare that the particular educational Institution is a minority Institution is barred in view of Sec.53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973. 5. Sec.53 of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 reads as follows: "53 Civil Court not to decide question under this Act: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be decided or dealt with by any authority or officer mentioned in this Act." Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the view taken by the lower appellate court that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature is erroneous and that Sec.53 of the above said act does not contemplate ouster of jurisdiction of the civil court for trying the suit of this nature. According to him, no machinery is created under the provisions of Act 29 of 1974 to decide about the minority character of an educational institutions. He pointed out that the appellant school was established by Jayaraj who is a member of the church of South India for catering to the needs of young christian girls who are finding it difficult to secure admission in other teacher training institutions. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Bible classes also are conducted on some days for preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is also to be noted that St.John Middle School which was established by the very same Jayaraj is enjoying the minority status. In the grounds of appeal it is mentioned that the plaintiff institution remains closed on all christian festivals and other Government holidays. Ex.A-1 is the Baptism certificate issued to Jayaraj and Ex.A-2 is the marriage certificate of Jayaraj and these would show that Jayaraj is a Christian attached to the church of South India. There is evidence that Jayaraj alone would be administering, the plaintiff school. So, Mr.Somayaji contended that the appellant institute was found and is administered as a minority institution. He pointed out that the lower appellate court rejected the evidence of P.W.I as interested testimony without assigning any reason especially when P.W.I is Founder and is administering the school. There is evidence that Jayaraj alone would be administering, the plaintiff school. So, Mr.Somayaji contended that the appellant institute was found and is administered as a minority institution. He pointed out that the lower appellate court rejected the evidence of P.W.I as interested testimony without assigning any reason especially when P.W.I is Founder and is administering the school. 6. Mr. R.Swaminathan learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there is no provision in the above said Act that declaration regarding minority status of a school should be obtained before starting the school. A careful perusal of Sec.53 of the above said Act does not reveal that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of minority status. It is admitted by both parties that the plaintiff is not seeking for recognition of the plaintiff school in the suit. But he seeks for a declaration that the plaintiff institute is a religious minority institution. I do not find that there is any prohibition in built in the above said Act or anywhere in any other statute ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the question regarding the minority nature of a school in suit seeking for a declaration that it is a minority institution. The lower appellate court is misconceived in deciding the issue that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 7. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for the appellant cited several decisions in support of his contention that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted in granting the relief of declaration as prayed for in the present suit. He relied upon the decision in the case of Sekhara Pillai v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (1992)2 L.W. 43. In that decision, Pratap Singh, J. held as follows: "It is in evidence that students in classes in Tamil Medium out number the number of students studying in Malayalam medium. Further more, as per Act 29 of 1994 the minority school is one which is established and administered, or administered by a minoirty. The plaintiffs case comes within the ambit of this definition also and hence is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. In view of the above, the plaintiff will have to necessarily succeed and get a declaration and injunction prayed for by him". The plaintiffs case comes within the ambit of this definition also and hence is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. In view of the above, the plaintiff will have to necessarily succeed and get a declaration and injunction prayed for by him". Mr.Somayajee, learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the following decisions: In support of his contention: .State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2079: (1971)1 S.C.J. 641: (1971)2 S.C.A. 194: (1971)1 S.C.R. 734, State of Punjab v. Devan Chunilal, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2086, D.A.V.College, Jullandur v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1737, A.P.Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1986)2 S.C.J. 594, Vice Chancellor, L.N.Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha, (1982)2 S.C.J. 605, R.M.B.T.School v. State, A.I.R. 1973 Ker. 87:1979 Ker.L.T. 920: I.L.R. (1979)2 Ker. 542:1973 Ker.L.J. 76, N.Parameswara Kurup v. State, A.I.R: 1986 Mad. 126 and Virendra Nath Gupta v. Delhi Administration, J. T. (1990)1 S.C. 403. 8. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon an unreported Judgment of this Court made in The Congregation of the Sisters of the St Anne Tiruchirapalli v. The Joint Director of School Education (Secondary), Ma-dras-6 and others, W.P.No.3754 of 1991 dated 4. 1991, for the proposition that when once the High Court recognised the school as a minority institution holding that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are not applicable to the minority institution, it is not necessary that at every stage, an institution that is run or being run or would be started for every school that to be stated and that the school should be protected under Art.30 of the Constitution of India. This Court has held that there is no need or necessity to obtain separate declaration from civil court on each occasion when a new educational institution is started, Mr.Somayaji, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered by me in His Holiness Srilasi Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Tambiran Swamigal Avergal, Head of Srikasi Mutt, Tiruppandal v. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9 and another, W.P.No.19419 of 1990 dated 9. 1991. In the case also, it was held that it is unnecessary even for the Government to insist upon such declaration for each and every one of the schools was already held that it is a religious denominational institution. 9. 1991. In the case also, it was held that it is unnecessary even for the Government to insist upon such declaration for each and every one of the schools was already held that it is a religious denominational institution. 9. Learned Additional Government Pleader is unable to rely upon any decision in support of his contention. In the circumstances, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are not according to law and facts and therefore the same are set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court are restored. 10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.