CHIVATAPU LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. MADDIRALA SUBBAYYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this second appeal arises was one by certain Archakas who had been dismissed from service by the appellant, who was then the interim trustee appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The District Munsiff of Tanuku held that there was nothing illegal in the manner in which the enquiry had been conducted and the order passed and he further held that the suit was barred by Section 43 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. He therefore dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District Judge of West Godavari, it was held that the appointment of the appellant as an interim trustee, ignoring inter alia the rights of the hereditary trustee, was ultra vires, and that therefore the suit lay. He held that Section 43 of the Act did not apply; because the competence of the appellant to act under that section had been rightly challenged. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal cannot be heard unless the trustees appointed by an order of the 30th September, 1947, are brought on record in the place of the present appellant who was by that order removed. The appellant appealed to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board against the order of the 30th September; but the appeal has not yet been disposed of.

(3.) IT appears that the scheme embodied in Ex. P -3, drawn up on 16th June, 1928 was not working satisfactorily, apparently because the hereditary trustee was not co -operating with the associate trustees; and so the Hindu Religious Endowments Board came to the conclusion that some modification of the original scheme was necessary. They therefore appointed the appellant as the interim trustee on 21st April, 1940, by Ex. P -2, pending the final modification of the scheme, which was not effected until 30th September, 1947. There seems to have been an unwarranted and unnecessary delay in modifying the original scheme; but for purposes of this appeal the delay is not material. On the 2nd March, 1941, the appellant dismissed the respondents.