HIS HOLINESS LAKSHMINDRA TIRTA SWAMIYAR Vs. PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Venkataramana Rao has raised an objection in limine that the appeal is incompetent. The material words of Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act are: The Court shall, on the application of the President of the Board or Committee, recover the amount as if a decree had been passed for the amount by the Court against the religious endowment concerned.

(2.) Mr. Venkataramana Rao contends that the effect of the section is merely to prescribe the mode of execution and that only such provisions as relate to the method of procedure become by force of this section applicable. We see no reason for adopting this very narrow construction. When the duty to execute an order of an outside body is entrusted to a judicial tribunal, it is difficult to conceive that its function is merely to perform an executive act; and, when the words employed are wide enough to include the exercise of judicial powers, there is less reason to hold that the Court does not possess them. In construing similar words occurring in Section 40 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, "as if the purchased lands had been decreed to the purchaser," a Bench of this Court held that the intention of the Legislature was to place the purchaser in the position of a decree-holder and that he is therefore entitled to such remedies as are open to decree-holders in execution proceedings Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi V/s. David Nadar (1904) 14 M.L.J. 433 . The learned Judges in that case followed a previous decision to the same effect in the unreported case, A.A.A.O. No. 27 of 1889. Sambasiva Mudaliar V/s. Panchanada Pillai (1907) I.L.R. 31 Mad. 24 : 17 M.L.J. 441 approves of the decision in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi V/s. David Nadar although the actual decision in the case relates to a different point. This view has the support also of E.D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. V/s. Shivji Ram A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 228 and Krishnaji Shridhar V/s. Mahadeo Sakharam (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 128. In Mathura Prasad V/s. Sheobalak Ram (1917) I.L.R. 40 All. 89 the question arose under the Co-operative Societies Act, and Mr. Venkataramana Rao relies upon it as supporting his contention. It is sufficient to observe for the present that we cannot regard it as a direct authority on the question raised.

(3.) It is next contended that it must be shown that an order made in execution falls within Section 47 of the Civil P. C. before an appeal can lie from it and that the section by its very terms excludes orders made in a proceeding of this kind. It would be contrary to the spirit of the provision conferring on the Civil Court the power to execute, to construe the word "suit" in Section 47 in its literal and strict sense. We must hold that the words in Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act "as if a decree had been passed" attract to the order the whole procedure in execution and the right of appeal provided under Section 47 of the Civil P. C.. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled.