JUDGMENT : Plaintiff in O.S.No.402 of 2017 before the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada presented this civil miscellaneous appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 C.P.C. assailing the order dated 25.04.2018 in I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.402 of 2017. 2. Respondent is Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam (for short ‘Devasthanam’) represented by its Executive Officer, Indrakiladri, Vijayawada. The appellant is a licensee which license was granted as he became the highest bidder in a tender quoted by the respondent-Devasthanam. The license that was granted was for a period of two years commencing from 01.06.2016 and stands terminated by 31.05.2018. Under this license the appellant was permitted to take spot photos at two points of Indrakiladri. License fee for the first year was Rs.36,06,000/-. License fee for the second year was Rs.39,66,600/-. Appellant remitted the first year license fee and did his work. In terms of the conditions he had given post-dated cheques towards the license fee for the second year. The first cheque given by him was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that led to initiation of a criminal case for dishonour of cheque. Despite demands he failed to remit the license fee for the second year. It was in those circumstances, a show-cause notice was issued to him and thereafter by an order dated 18.12.2017 the Executive Officer of Devasthanam passed an order for cancelling the license that was granted to the appellant and he was directed to vacate the premises. 3. Challenging the correctness of that order, the appellant filed O.S.No.402 of 2017 before the learned Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The prayer in the suit is as mentioned below : 1. For declaration, declaring that the order dt.18.12.2017 passed by defendant as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the principles of natural justice; 2. For consequential relief of setting aside the order dt.18.12.2017 passed by defendant by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and continuance of the business of the plaintiff till the license period is completed i.e., 31.05.2018 by adjusting the amount paid by plaintiff i.e., Rs.36,06,000/- proportionately i.e. Rs.18,03,000/- for the first year and Rs.19,83,300/- for second year totaling Rs.37,86,300/- while permitting the plaintiff to deposit/pay the balance due amount of Rs.1,80,300/-; 3. For costs of this suit; 4. For costs of this suit; 4. And for such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. 4. During the pendency of that suit, respondent-Devasthanam filed I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.402 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 C.P.C. seeking for rejection of the plaint. There are other applications filed by the licensee before the trial Court seeking for interim injunction and such other orders. Learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada considered I.A.No.21 of 2018 and the other two applications together and after due enquiry and after hearing arguments on both sides, passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2018 wherein he held that plaint that was presented disclosed cause of action and the claim made was not barred by any law and therefore, the prayer for rejection of plaint could not be ordered. However, the learned Additional District Judge took the view that by virtue of Sections 87 and 151 read with Section 162 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act, 1987’), the jurisdiction to decide the dispute vested with the Endowments Tribunal and not with the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, it thought that plaint could not be maintained before the Civil Court and therefore, exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. it ordered for return of the plaint to be presented before proper Court. 5. It is that order which is challenged in this civil miscellaneous appeal. Appellant contends that the order of the trial Court is erroneous. The dispute between parties is a matter governed by a contract between parties and therefore civil suit is maintainable. That in terms of condition No.23 mentioned in the tender notification the disputes with regard to tender have to be decided by the competent Civil Courts at Vijayawada. In fact in W.P.No.44019 of 2017 filed by this appellant before this Court this respondent in its counter stated that dispute between parties had to be adjudicated by Civil Court. Having taken such a stand before this Court in that writ petition it is not within the competence of the respondent-Devasthanam to turn around and say that the dispute cannot be decided by a Civil Court, but it has to be decided by Endowments Tribunal. Having taken such a stand before this Court in that writ petition it is not within the competence of the respondent-Devasthanam to turn around and say that the dispute cannot be decided by a Civil Court, but it has to be decided by Endowments Tribunal. It is for these reasons, learned counsel for the appellant urges to upset the impugned order. 6. Despite valid service of notice, none has entered appearance for respondent. 7. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for appellant and on perusing the material on record, the following point emerges for consideration : “Whether in a dispute emanating out of a contract between parties, the suit filed by the appellant before the Civil Court is maintainable and the impugned order returning the plaint is valid or not?” 8. Point : Appellant submitted tender conditions dated 18.05.2016 which is in Telugu language. Appellant also submitted English translation of it. Appellant has not disputed that the present dispute is governed by these tender conditions. It is admitted case on both sides that at two spots the appellant was permitted to take photographs for the pilgrims. Spot No.1 is at Swarna Gopuram and spot No.2 is New Rajagopuram. Term No.6 in the tender conditions speak about payment of license fee for the first year and issuance of cheques towards the license fee for the second year. It further prescribed that any failure to honour the cheques or remit the license fee for the second year results in automatic termination of license and the licensee was not even entitled for issuance of any notice. Term No.15 states that during the period of license if the Devasthanam authorities have taken up any developmental works and if they understood that the two spots that were allotted for photography were required to be taken away for attending the development works, Devasthanam holds the right to stop the continuance of license and thereafter the account between parties shall be settled considering the length of period and the length of amount and in accordance with the figures arrived at the payments have to be made and concluded. Term No.16 is vital as it has mentioned that by the time of this tender itself developmental works have been under way and that is notified to all the participants in the auction and it further says that during the time of tender period if Devasthanam wants those places then it is the decision of the Executive Officer to grant alternative place for licensed photograph purposes and his decision is final. It further stipulated that there shall be no concession in the license fee if this condition had to be invoked. It may be mentioned here that the whole claim in the suit filed by this appellant, his grievance was that he was able to do his work at one spot and from the very beginning of the period the second spot was not handed over because of the developmental works. That he had paid the license fee for the first year. He did not pay license fee for the second year. He states that since the second spot was not given to him for use, the license fee paid for the first year shall be adjusted for the second year and the balance amount of Rs.1,80,300/- would be paid by him. The plaint also mentions that respondent-Devasthanam offered Sivalayam point, but the appellant refused for it since that was not part of the place for which the auction was held. This contention was raised before the Executive Officer and by a reasoned order he stated that for a long time the second spot was also used by the appellant and in terms of term No.16 of the tender conditions he had no option except to accept the alternative provided by the Devasthanam and despite that appellant has been litigating the matter and therefore, respondent cancelled the license essentially on the premise that license fee was not paid. 9. Chapter No.XI of the Act, 1987 made provisions about encroachments. Section 83 of the Act, 1987 empowers the authorities to determine about the encroachments and referring the matters to Endowments Tribunal. Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the Act has got statutory explanation which is extracted here : “83. 9. Chapter No.XI of the Act, 1987 made provisions about encroachments. Section 83 of the Act, 1987 empowers the authorities to determine about the encroachments and referring the matters to Endowments Tribunal. Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the Act has got statutory explanation which is extracted here : “83. Encroachments by persons on land or building belonging to charitable or religious institution or endowment and the eviction of encroachers - (1) Where the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction, either suo motu or upon a complaint made by the trustee has reason to believe that any person has encroached upon (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as ‘encroacher') any land, building, tank, well, spring or water-course or any space belonging to the institution or endowment, wherever situated or deemed as an encroacher under any of the provisions of this Act, the Assistant Commissioner shall report the fact together with relevant particulars to the Endowments Tribunal having jurisdiction over the division in which the institution or endowment is situated. Explanation:-For the purpose of this Chapter the expression ‘encroacher' shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it.” Thus, this explanation makes it clear that a licensee in occupation of a place when continues to be in occupation after expiry of the term or after termination of cancellation of license is called as an encroacher. The Executive Officer in his order dated 18.12.2017 cancelled the license of the appellant and directed him to vacate the premises. Where can the licensee question the correctness of this order? As one could see from Section 83 of the Act, 1987 the Endowments Tribunal is empowered to deal with these aspects. Sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, 1987 speaks about issuance of notices to parties and Sub-Section (4) of Section 83 of the Act, 1987 speaks about receiving the objections and further provisions speak about the manner of hearing and disposal of the case by the Endowments Tribunal. Sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, 1987 speaks about issuance of notices to parties and Sub-Section (4) of Section 83 of the Act, 1987 speaks about receiving the objections and further provisions speak about the manner of hearing and disposal of the case by the Endowments Tribunal. Section 84 of the Act, 1987 provides mechanism for making an appeal to this Court as against the orders of the Endowments Tribunal. 10. Chapter No.XIII of the Act, 1987 provides for appeal, revision etc. As against orders of the Executive Officer revision is provided under Section 92 of the Act, 1987 and the Commissioner is empowered to consider the said revision. Section 93 of the Act, 1987 empowers the Government to entertain a revision as against the orders of the Executive officer or the Commissioner. It is undisputed that the order of the Executive Officer dated 18.12.2017 was not challenged by the appellant either under Section 92 or 93 of the Act, 1987. Thus, the in-house mechanism provided by the comprehensive Act have not been explored by the appellant. He straightaway filed the civil suit. In terms of Section 83 of the Act, 1987 the subject matter being one concerning the contract of license it is Endowments Tribunal which holds the jurisdiction to decide the disputed aspects. Appellant did not pursue remedies before the Endowments Tribunal. It is in that view of the matter the learned trial Court recorded that appellant had a cause of action and is competent to litigate, but the forum where he is expected to agitate his grievance is not before a Civil Court but before the Endowments Tribunal. By virtue of the discussion that is made above, the view taken by the trial Court has to be accepted as correct. 11. Section 151 of the Act, 1987 is extracted here : “151. Bar of Jurisdiction - No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of an institution or endowment or any other matters of dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.” The bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per this provision arises if a provision is made in the Endowments Act for determining the dispute and deciding it. As noticed earlier, the dispute is one regarding contract of license and its cancellation and Section 83 of the Act, 1987 empowers the Endowments Tribunal to decide the validity of the order passed by the Executive Officer. Thus, there is a provision and a forum created under the Act itself. As a result of it, the bar contained in Section 151 of the Act, 1987 operates and the Civil Court is ousted of its jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the trial Court shall be approved as correct. 12. Appellant draws attention to term No.23 of the auction conditions. For benefit, it is extracted here : Learned counsel for appellant urges that in terms of it, it is Civil Court which holds the jurisdiction and the trial Court erred in returning the plaint. This Court is unable to accede to this contention. The above condition simply speaks about territorial jurisdiction of a Civil Court. By this contractual term it was agreed between parties that only Civil Courts at Vijayawada held jurisdiction to decide the dispute. To that extent, there is no violation of this term since the appellant filed the suit only in Civil Court at Vijayawada. However, term No.23 does not empower either party to file a civil suit. It only says that in the event of a civil suit the same could be filed at Vijayawada and not elsewhere. This term cannot be understood as a provision permitting either party to file a civil suit. Filing a civil suit is governed by rights emanating from the statutes and not otherwise. If the statute specified that a civil suit cannot be maintained before a civil Court that cannot be overridden by contrary agreement between parties. The rule is well stated and is never disputed that by consent of parties the jurisdiction cannot be vested with a Court. When the Civil Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter it is inherent lack of jurisdiction. The dispute between parties is governed by that rule. The jurisdiction over the subject matter dispute is vested with the Endowments Tribunal and parties by their choice cannot circumvent the statute to ignore the statutory provision and agitate their disputes before a Civil Court. A contract is a private law between parties governing their conduct and a contract cannot override the law itself. The jurisdiction over the subject matter dispute is vested with the Endowments Tribunal and parties by their choice cannot circumvent the statute to ignore the statutory provision and agitate their disputes before a Civil Court. A contract is a private law between parties governing their conduct and a contract cannot override the law itself. Therefore, argument based on term No.23 cannot be countenanced to the extent of saying that Civil Court holds jurisdiction. Therefore, this contention is negatived. 13. Appellant contends that in W.P.No.44019 of 2017 filed by him against this very respondent a counter was filed by this respondent mentioning that dispute had to be agitated before a Civil Court. As a matter of fact taking such a stand in the counter in the said writ petition is not disputed by the respondent. Based on this learned counsel for appellant submits that the respondent during the course of hearing of the writ petition contends that Civil Court had jurisdiction but when the appellant filed a civil suit it contended that Civil Court had no jurisdiction and this turn around is impermissible. It has to be stated that any such admission by respondent in such writ petition about Civil Courts jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction on Civil Court. Estoppel does not operate against statute. As stated earlier, jurisdiction of a Civil Court is a matter of law and not a choice between parties. Therefore, this contention of appellant has no merit. 14. Appellant cited Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. A E Eswara Mudaliar, (2005) 1 ALT 166/2011 SCC Online AP 837. That was a case where on expiration of lease period fresh auction proceedings were initiated by Devasthanam. However, as the lessee was continuing in possession, Devasthanam sued for damages. The lessee contended about absence of jurisdiction for Civil Court. It was in that context, their Lordships had held that by then a relief for damages was not governed by any provision in the Endowments Act empowering the Endowments Tribunal to decide the dispute. It was in that view of the matter their Lordships had said that with reference to encroachments and evictions and matters related to it, only the Endowments Tribunal had got jurisdiction and with reference to mere damages only Civil Court had jurisdiction. Their Lordships referred to Sections 83 and 151 of the Act, 1987. This ruling does not help the appellant. Their Lordships referred to Sections 83 and 151 of the Act, 1987. This ruling does not help the appellant. The entire discussion in the ruling which also refers not only lessees but also licensees concluded saying that with reference to encroachments and evictions only the Tribunal has jurisdiction but not the Civil Court. 15. Appellant cited Veerasiva Sangham v. Commissioner of Endowments, (1994) 2 ALT 602 (AP)/1994 SCC Online AP 133. That was a case where their Lordships held that Act 30 of 1987 came into force from 28.05.1987 and this Act has no retrospective effect and therefore any rights accrued earlier to the commencement of this Act are to be implemented as per the law existing prior to the enactment. This ruling has no relevance to the case at hand since the contract of license between parties came into existence in the year 2016 which is well subsequent to bringing into force Act 30 of 1987. 16. Appellant cited S. Anjana Reddy v. Palvoi Ranga Reddy, (2017) 3 ALD 260 (AP)/(2017) SCC Online Hyderabad 5. In that case their Lordships held that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.837 dated 13.07.2009 and G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 28.02.2011 the Endowments Tribunal is constituted and is functioning and it has to decide all the disputes and constitution of such Tribunal has ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Their Lordships also held that by legal fiction this Tribunal deemed to be Civil Court. This ruling also does not help the appellant. 17. Appellant cited K. Narsimhulu v. Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu, (2006) 6 ALD 428 (AP)/2006 SCC Online AP 678. That is a case where agricultural lands were in dispute and the dispute was as to whether a person is a tenant or not. In those context of facts this Court had to deal with jurisdiction of Tenancy Tribunals and Civil Courts. During the course of discussion, it was recorded that the lands belonged to Endowments and by virtue of change in the law in the year 2002 Tenancy Special Officer or Tribunal had no jurisdiction over Endowments lands. On facts it was found that the person was not a tenant and therefore this Court ruled that in such an event civil suit could be maintained. The facts and the contentions in which such decision was rendered has no resemblance to the facts available here. On facts it was found that the person was not a tenant and therefore this Court ruled that in such an event civil suit could be maintained. The facts and the contentions in which such decision was rendered has no resemblance to the facts available here. That case did not deal with any license, failure to comply with license conditions, resulting in order of termination of license etc. Therefore, this ruling does not help the appellant. 18. In summing up it has to be stated that there is no merit in this appeal and the learned trial Court after consideration of law and facts reached to appropriate conclusions and ordered for return of the plaint. The impugned order has to be sustained. Point is answered against the appellant. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 25.04.2018 of learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.21 of 2018 in O.S.No.402 of 2017. The appellant is entitled to move an application before the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada seeking refund of Rs.1,00,000/- that he deposed there. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.