VIRARAGHAVA PERUMALAYYA Vs. SITARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under Section 16 of the Religious Endowment Act XX of 1863, it was open to the Judge to refer any matter in difference in the suit for decision by an arbitrator, but it was not open to him to refer the whole suit for decision to an arbitrator as he has done in this case.

(2.) One result of this irregularity has been that the arbitrator has drawn up a scheme for the management of the temple which not even the District Judge had the power to do under the Act.

(3.) On this ground we allow the appeal, and reversing the decree, remand the suit to be replaced on the tile and disposed of according to law.