In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. Thereafter, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short). They denied the prosecution allegations regarding demand for dowry and harassment of the deceased and alleged that they were being falsely implicated. The accused persons also denied that the deceased was set ablaze by them. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court convicted all the three accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC for causing the dowry death of the deceased and accordingly sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine. However, the learned trial court was pleased to extend the benefit of doubt qua the charge under Section 302 of IPC and thus, acquitted the accused persons of the said charge. The present case mainly rests on the dying declaration of the deceased. No doubt, that a conviction can be solely recorded on the basis of dying declaration. However, for doing so, the court must come to a conclusion that the dying declaration is trustworthy, reliable and one which inspires confidence. In the present case, the dying declaration is recorded by Shri Sadhu Singh (PW-5), Executive Magistrate. He stated that he obtained the certificate from the doctor regarding the fitness of the deceased to make the statement. He further stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased and thereafter it was read over and explained to her. He further states that she had thumb marked the same after admitting its contents to be correct. In the dying declaration recorded by Shri Sadhu Singh (PW-5), Executive Magistrate, the deceased is said to have stated that on 5th November 1991 at around 12:00 noon, her husband Phulel Singh, i.e., the appellant herein, Jora Singh, father-in-law and Dhan Kaur, mother-in-law caught hold of her. Her husband, the appellant herein put kerosene on her person and set her ablaze. She further stated that when she was set on fire, she raised an alarm but the accused overpowered her. There can be no doubt, declaratory relief can be granted only by competent civil Court and not by any other forum. But it is relevant to point out that the Registrar of Societies will have power under the Act and Rules to enquire into the correctness arid validity of the voters list and also to find out as to whether the election of Secretary and Members of the Executive Committee of the revision petitioner society was in accordance with the bye laws of the society and also the Act and Rules. Therefore, it will be a concurrent jurisdiction to the Civil Court as well as to the authorities concerned under the Act and the Rules. A relief of permanent injunction restraining the elect body can be granted by a civil Court having jurisdiction alone and not by any other authority empowered under the Act and the Rules. This is the special power conferred on the civil Court and the 1st respondent herein has come forward with this suit to exercise such special power vested with the competent civil Court in this matter. Though the authority under the Act and the. It is under the said circumstances, it has been held that the party who had approached for a remedy which can be availed and the Act cannot approach the Civil Court for such remedy. Such is not the position in this case and therefore, the decision may not be of much help to the revision petitioner society. Submit