RAMACHANDRAN Vs. KALLIANIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order in O. S. No. 116 of 1998 by the plaintiff. There is a dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant as to who is entitled to conduct the Pookazhakam at Sree Valayanad Temple, Kozhikode. The first defendant approached the Deputy Commissioner under S.57(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Commissioner gave his decision in favour of the first defendant. Against the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, under S.62 of the Act, the plaintiff instituted the suit challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner. The suit was included in the list. Plaintiff wanted to adduce evidence. The court below by the impugned Order held that the plaintiff cannot adduce evidence because, what is challenged is the validity of the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner and the validity of the Order is to be adjudged on the basis of the evidence already adduced. It is that order what is challenged before me.

(2.) S.57 of the Act says that "subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the decision in Srisailam Devastanam v. Bhavani Pramilamma, (AIR 1983 A.P. 297). That was a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. The question involved there was what is the power to be exercised by the appellate court against the award passed by the Tribunal. It was observed as follows: