SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR Vs. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent or the counter petitioner in this criminal revision petition, applied under S.87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which may be referred to as the Act, to the District Magistrate (Judicial), at Tellicherry on the strength of a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Act, for delivery to him, of movable properties, which belong to a religious institution of which he is in charge as the manager, from the revision petitioner, who had been the previous manager and was suspended from service. The District Magistrate passed the order for the delivery of the properties to the respondent. This petition is to revise that order.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised, that though the District Magistrate had acted in his judicial capacity and as a tribunal, in passing the order for the delivery of the properties, he really functioned as persona designata, and exercised only a special jurisdiction conferred on him by the Act. This objection was founded on the view expressed by Bhimasankaran, J. as single Judge in Anjayya v. Venkateswaradas Bavaji, 1958 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 263. In the later case, B. Krishna v. D. Chenchi Ready, AIR 1959 Andhra Pradesh 129 decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court, which consisted of P. Chandra Reddy, C. J. and Srinivasachari, J., a contrary view was taken, on a consideration of the provisions of the Act and of other relevant statutes, and on a review of the case law on the subject. The learned counsel for the respondent in the revision petition has not succeeded in making any point against the correctness of the view so taken. In my opinion, the reasoning in the judgment of the Divisional Court is conclusive against the preliminary objection, and I have no hesitation in overruling it.

(3.) On the merits, the point pressed before me on behalf of the revision-petitioner was, that the Magistrate had not considered the objection taken, that the revision petitioner is not in possession of all the movable properties, the delivery of which had been asked for, but that some of them are in the custody of a former santhikaran of the institution, against whom steps for their recovery are pending. In this context, the effect has to be considered, of the certificate which is prescribed by S.87 of the Act, and on the basis of which, an order for delivery of properties could be made. The first proviso to this Section has set out the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner appointed under the Act, in issuing the Certificate; it enjoins on him to give notice to the concerned office-holder or servant of the religious institution, and to consider his objections, if any, to the issue. The revision petitioner has a case, that he did not receive any notice, and that his objections to the issue of the Certificate were not heard by the Deputy Commissioner; but this does not arise in this petition, which is to revise the order of the Magistrate. For the purpose of this petition, it may be deemed, that the Certificate was issued in due compliance with the prescribed procedure. The second proviso to the Section which is material, reads as follows:-