PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS Vs. SHIRUR MUTT BY ITS TRUSTEE, LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHASWAMIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in these appeals is the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. In May 1930 the Board made a demand under Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act upon the Respondent the trustee of two Mutts in Udipi, for contributions for several years beginning with the fasli ending with 30 June, 1925. The contributions were not paid, and in due course the Board applied (November, 1930) under Section 70(2) to the learned District Judge of South Kanara to recover the amount of the contributions. The Board's applications were allowed in so far as the period subsequent to 30 June, 1926 was concerned but the demands for the two faslis ending with that date were held to be barred by limitation. Against this part of the District Judge's order the Board has appealed.

(2.) The clause in Section 70(2) of the Act which regulates the Courts proceedings is the following: The Court shall, on the application of the President of the Board recover the amount as if a decree had been passed for the amount by the Court against the religious Endowment concerned.

(3.) Now it is contended for the appellant that such an application is governed by Art. 182 of the Limitation Act. For this position there is no direct authority, but we think the appellant is entitled to rely upon the ruling reported in re Belvedere Jute Mills, Ltd. Chaitram Sagor Mull v. Hardwari Mull & Co. (1927) 31 C.W.N. 1097. In that case the article of the Limitation Act applicable to the enforcing of an award under Section 15 of the Indian Arbitration Act was being considered, and it was held that Art. 182 applied. The words of Section 15 are quoted in the head note shall be enforceable as if it were a decree of that Court and it will be seen that these words are precisely similar in significance to the words in Section 70(2) of the present Act The Court shall recover the amount as if a decree had been passed . This position also receives support, though the question of limitation did not there arise, from the ruling of a Bench of the Madras High Court reported in Lakshmindra Tirta Swamiyar V/s. President of the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras (1932) I.L.R. 56 Mad. 712 : 65 M.L.J. 364. It was there held that an appeal lay under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code from an order of the Court passed under Section 70(2) of the Act as the words as if a decree had been passed attract to the order the whole procedure in execution and with it the right of appeal . No ruling to any effect contrary to these authorities has been brought to our notice, and we accordingly hold that Art. 182 applies to the present cases. That being so, the applications of the Board could not have been made until three months had elapsed from the date of the Board's demand (i.e., until August 1930) and being made in November 1930 were clearly in time.