TAYI NARASIMHA RAO, EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. PASUPALETI SURANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a decision given by the District Judge of West Godavari in O.S. No. 8 of 1944. That suit purported to be filed under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and related to the property of the Malleswaraswami temple at Relangi. This temple was notified by Government under Chapter VI-A of the Act and the first plaintiff was duly appointed the executive officer. Later, after the suit was filed, he was replaced by the second plaintiff. The defendants are said to be in possession of the temple lands and to have been at one time prior to the appointment of the plaintiffs de facto if not de jure trustees of the temple.

(2.) The plaint asks that the entire interest in the suit land--the properties of the temple-- should be declared to be the endowment of the temple and be vested in the plaintiffs. Next the plaintiffs ask for an account of the income of the property and of the expenses incurred by the defendants for the yearly kalyanam and that the defendants be ordered to pay over the moneys remaining in their hands with interest. Thirdly, the plaintiffs ask for possession of the suit property.

(3.) The first issue framed in the suit related to jurisdiction. The learned District Judge nevertheless decided to consider fully all the other issues and only at the end of his judgment to deal with the first issue. He went into this issue with great care and came to the conclusion that the suit was not a suitable one to be filed under Section 73 of the Act and therefore that the proper Court should have been the Sub-Court at Narasapur, following the principle of Section 15 of the Civil P. C., viz., that every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it. It is a pity we think that he did not go on and decide the whole case himself because then the matter would have been ended once for all and it would not have been possible for the defendants to have canvassed the matter "on appeal at any rate on the ground that there was want of jurisdiction. However, as the learned Judge felt bound to decide the question of jurisdiction and to decide it against the plaintiffs it is not for us or any one to criticise his scrupulousness in this regard.