K N VENKATARAMA CHETTY Vs. V LAKSHMIRAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether a suit instituted under the provisions of Section 77 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 ('old Act', for short) can be continued after the said Act was repealed by the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 ('new Act', for short) or, whether it should be treated as an appeal and continued under the new Act.

(2.) The petitioners instituted proceedings against the respondents before the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments which ended in favour of the petitioners. The respondents filed a suit OS No. 3/87 in the District Court, Chittoor, under Section 77 of the old Act. Subsequently, the new Act came into force with effect from 28-5-87 repealing the old Act. The petitioners filed IA No. 474/91 requesting the Court to determine the maintainability of the suit in view of the provisions of the Act, under which an appeal alone lay before the District Court against the order of the Deputy Commissioner and no suit is maintainable. The learned Judge dismissed the said application holding that suits instituted under the old Act can be continued and the suit laid by the respondents is maintainable.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit instituted under the old Act, cannot be continued as the old Act was repealed and under Section 155(2)(d) of the new Act, which deals with repeals and savings, the proceeding which was pending at the time of commencement of the new Act, can be continued as if the proceedings in respect of which the remedy is sought, had been instituted under the new Act. He submits that there is no provision under the new Act, enabling a party aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to institute a suit and on the other hand, the aggrieved party can only file an appeal to the District Court under Section 88 of the new Act against the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. He contends that the object of the new Act is to provide for speedy disposal of the disputes and other proceedings and that is the reason why the legislature thought it fit to do away with the remedy of a suit by providing an appeal, to avoid unnecessary delay in the determination of disputes.