INDERMAL LUNIA Vs. COMR OF ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is registered subject to the order regarding maintainability to be decided at the time of final hearing. As the respondent was not represented, I requested Mr. T. S. Haranuth to assist me in this case. I place on record my appreciation of his thorough examination of the case in assisting the Court.

(2.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, filed under Section 78 of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act. (Act 17 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Initially the plaintiff filed an application under Section 77 of the said Act for declaration that the suit temple is a private temple, before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, the 2nd defendant herein. That application was dismissed on 23-7-1966. Challenging the said order, the present suit O. S. No. 132 of 1779 was field as provided under Section 78 of the Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.

(3.) The office took objections slating that unlike the previous Act 19 of 1951 which provided an appeal against the judgments of the Civil Court to the High Court, no further appeal is provided to the High Court and hence the appeal is not maintainable and the remedy of the petitioner is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 81 of the Act which provided a revisional jurisdiction against the orders passed by the Court. In order to examine this question, I have to see the provisions of this Act and the provisions of the previous Acts. It is useful to refer to the provisions of the previous Act.