SATYANARAYANA Vs. NAGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastry.

(2.) The plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned District Judge of Guntur is the appellant in this appeal. He sued as managing trustee of Sri Ramalingeswaraswami at Kovvur, Repalle Taluk, Guntur District, for the removal of the 1st defendant from the management of the temple, for vesting the management of the temple and its properties in the plaintiff, for directing the 1st defendant to render an account of his management and pay over to the trust the sums in respect of which he is found accountable and for a direction that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the temple properties and records after removing the 1st defendant from possession. In the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff was the managing trustee of the temple and that the 1st defendant was the previous managing trustee and he was continuing to function as the de facto trustee of the temple. The learned District Judge held that the suit had not been instituted with the previous sanction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board required under section 73(1) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Ex. A-1 is a telegram dated 30-12-1948 purporting to have been sent by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board to the plaintiff and it runs in these terms: "Permission receiver application filing accord".

(3.) There is no reference in this telegram to a suit claiming the reliefs specified in section 73 (1) (a) (b) (d) and (e) of the Act. Section 73 clauses (1) to (4) have been substituted for section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908. The suits previously filed with the consent of the Collector or the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the C. P. C. have to be filed under Sec. 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act when they relate to religious endowments governed by the Act. The object of section 73 in requiring the previous sanction of the Board for the suit is to restrict individuals from free access to courts in order to ventilate their private grievances and to prevent unnecessary harassment of trustees of religious endowments. It has been held under the corresponding provisions of Sec. 92 C. P. C. that the consent of the Advocate-General or the Collector was a condition precedent to the institution of the suit to which such consent related. If, therefore, no consent had been given before the institution of the suit, the suit must be dismissed or the plaintiff may withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The defect of want of sanction cannot be rectified after the institution of the suitVide Gopal Dei v. Kanno Dei and Tricumdas Mulji v. Khimji Vullabhadass. The same principle should govern the interpretation of section 73 (l) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The language of that section is that "any person having interest and having obtained the consent of the Board", may institute a suit to obtain any of the reliefs specified in clauses (a) to (e) of section 73 (1), The consent of the Board is therefore a pre-requisite to the maintainability of a suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in section 73 (1) clauses (a) to (e). The point is further emphasised by section 73 (4) which provides that no suit or other legal proceeding claiming any relief provided in this Act in respect of such administration or management shall be instituted except under and in conformity with the provisions of this Act. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant that even though the consent of the Board has not been obtained before the suit was instituted, it is open to the plaintiff to obtain such consent at this stage, if an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal is granted to him.