PANNURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY Vs. PUNNAMANENI RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order of the District Judge passed in I.A.'No. 43 of 1951 on 22nd December, 1963, whereby hedirected the enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner before me was previously an archaka. The . respondent was appointed a trustee in 1949 and was authorised under a certificate issued in 1950 for getting possession from the petitioner archaka. In pursuance of that certi.fi:ate the respondeat filed O.P. No. 69 of 1950 for delivery of possession under section 78 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called the Act). That petition was ordered in 1954. A Civil Revision Petition against that order was filed in this Court and a stay obtained but subsequently the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed in 1958. Thus the order directing the delivery of possession was affirmed. The respondent took delivery of possession in May, 1958. On 2nd January, 1961, the respondent filed I.A. No. 43 of 1961 under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to direct an enquiry into the mesne profits and also for a decree after determining the mesne profits.

(2.) This petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the lower Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. It was also contended that the order made under section 78 directing the delivery of possession does not give any direction in regard to the mesne profits. In any case it was contended that when the respondent has already filed a suit O.S. No. 16 of 1961, for the same purpose he cannot file a petition under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. Rejecting all these contentions the lower Court has directed enquiry into the mesne profits. It is that view which is now assailed in this petition. Now under section 78 of the Act where a person has been appointed as a trustee and such person is prevented from obtaining possession of the property belonging to the temple by a trustee or office-holder or a servant of the temple the Court shall on application by the trustee so appointed and on the production of the order of appointment and where the application is for the possession of the property on a certificate by the Board setting forth that the property in question belongs to the temple, direct delivery of the possession to the trustee of the temple. The proviso to that section enjoins that nothing in the section prevents any one from instituting a suit, who is aggrieved by an order under section 78 of the Act for establishing his title to the property. This section evidently does not speak of mesne profits. It only clothes the Court with the jurisdiction of directing delivery of possession after production of the necessary certificate. I do not therefore think that the lower Court was competent to travel beyond section 78 of the Act, and assume jurisdiction for granting mesne profits which it has not got under section 78. No other section was brought to my notice which clothes the lower Court with jurisdiction to grant mesne profits in a proceeding under section 78 of the Act.

(3.) That apart, the proceedings which were commenced in 1951 were concluded in 1957 and possession also was delivered in May, 1958. The proceedings under section 78 of the Act therefore were completely closed. Admittedly these was no direct on either in the order passed under section 78 by the Court or in the order passed by this Court in revision. In the absence of any such direction in regard to mesne profits obviously the respondent cannot have recourse to Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, in a proceeding under section 78. When the respondent has already instituted O.S. No. 16 of 1961 for the same purpose I do not think that the lower Court either had jurisdiction under section 78 of the Act or there was any bustifiable reason to direct enquiry into mesne profits in these proceedings. It was jirought to my notice that while obtaining stay during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition in this Court the petitioner was directed to furnish security. The security was accordingly furnished and the direction of delivery of possession was stayed. Merely because security was obtained for mesne profits it does not clothe the Court with a jurisdiction which it does not have under section 78 to direct enquiry into the mesne profits and grant ultimately a decree in regard to the same. The security may be of use to the respondent in the civil suit which he had already instituted. For the abovesaid reasons I do not think that the lower Court was competent to direct the enquiry. Consequently this revision petition is allowed, the order of the Court below set aside and the petition filed by the respondent under Order 20, rule 12, Civil Procedure Code, dismissed. I leave the parties to bear their own costs of both the Courts. Revision allowed.