LAWS(MAD)-1945-3-21

T.K. THIRUVENGADAM PILLAI AND ANR. Vs. THE MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT

Decided On March 12, 1945
T.K. Thiruvengadam Pillai And Anr. Appellant
V/S
The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Through Its President Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE appears to be little merit in this appeal, but at the same time the law is on the side of the appellants. They are trustees of a charity connected with the Sri Nachiar Temple at Srivilliputtur. The charity is called the Madras Sri Boni Narayana Pillai Annadhana Kattalai Charity, Its object is the daily feeding of Brahmans at this temple.

(2.) THE Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board considered that the endowment was a specific endowment attached to the temple and consequently levied an annual contribution under Section 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927. Thereupon the appellants filed a petition (O.P. No. 83 of 1940) in the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad and for this purpose invoked Sub -section (2) of Section 84 of the Act. Sub -section (1) of that section says that if a dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in the Act or whether the temple is an excepted temple, the dispute shall be decided by the Board. Subsection (2) gives the person affected by the decision the right to apply within one year to the District Court to modify or set aside the decision; but, subject to the result of any such application, the order of the Board is final.

(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING that the appellants had relied on Section 84(2), they filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad the suit which has given rise -to this appeal. They persist in their previous contention that this is a private charity and therefore cannot be regarded as a specific endowment of the temple. They also say that the suit lies because an application under Section 84 was not open to them. This is a complete volte face. As a result of the adverse finding of the District Judge in O.P. No. 83 of 1940, the Subordinate Judge held that Section 84 applied to the case and that the District Judge's decision on the petition under Sub -section (2) operates as res judicata. Consequently he dismissed the suit. The appea1 is from the decree of dismissal.