KUNTANUKKALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. RAMALINGESWARASWAMY TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by Kuntamukkala Satyanarayana, who is alleged to be the hereditary trustee of Sri Ramalingeswara Swami Varu at Malakapalli in West Godavari district, against the order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Kowur, directing him to hand over documents, accounts and leases in his charge to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, D. Venkataratnam (1st respondent).

(2.) The petitioner, who was the hereditary trustee of the temple, was being appointed regularly from 1948 onwards as trustee and in November, 1961 four additional trustees were appointed. Thereafter it is said that under section 40 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ' the Act') the trustees elected the first respondent as the Chairman, who filed an application, under section 87 of the Act before the Munsif-Magistrate, Kowur, not only for delivery of the papers of the temple but also of movable properties belonging to it. Later the Chairman endorsed on the petition that he gave up the prayer for delivery of the movable properties and has confined his petition only to the delivery of records specified above. The petitioner contended that no meeting was held after due notice to him and as such the appointment is not valid and that consequently no order can be made. It was also contended that under section 87 of the Act without a certificate by the Commissioner, Religious Endowments Board, the application was not maintainable and that he being a trustee, no proceedings can be commenced against him by a co-trustee under section 87 of the Act. The Magistrate overruled these objections and directed the delivery of the papers.

(3.) In this revision petition Mr. Y.G. Krishnamurthy for the petitioner has raised all the above three contentions and has further submitted that even if the first respondent is elected under section 40 of the Act, he cannot be said to have been ' appointed ' for the purpose of section 87 of the Act. In so far as the contention that the petition is not maintainable without a certificate from the Commissioner is concerned, it depends upon the interpretation of section 87 of the Act which is as follows :-