SUKH RAM SINGH Vs. BAIJ NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order allowing an application under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and granting permission to the opposite parties to file a suit for the reliefs mentioned therein.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the applicants was that the aforesaid. Act was not applicable to the religious endowments which came into existence after 1863. In the present case the endowment came into existence long after 1863. This question was referred by the learned Single Judge who first heard this revision to a five Judge Full Bench which has, by its judgment dated April 17, 1984 unanimously answered the question in the affirmative - -See, 1984 AWC 423. The opinion expressed is that Sections 14 and 18 of the Act apply also to religious endowments created after 1863 and consequently the said Act was rightly applied to the instant case. The Full Bench decision, therefore, concludes the first point.

(3.) I am unable to agree. It is true that the repeal of a repealed Act does not automatically revive the repealed Act on the repeal of the repealing Act (See Section 7 of General Clauses Act). In the present case, however, the Religious Endowments Act was not repealed by the Ordinance of 1976. The Ordinance merely provided that the Religious Endowments Act. 1863 shall cease to apply to charitable Institutions and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments thereof. Section 94 of the Ordinance which provides for repeals and savings in so far as it Is relevant for the purpose of this case provides: