SANGAPU SANGAYYA Vs. PANNALA VENKATALAKSHMI NARAYANA SASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not see why respondents 2 to 4 should be removed from the record. Under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act the trustee of Sri Maleswaraswami Temple in Guntur town moved the Board to declare the temple an excepted temple. The Board issued notice to all persons interested. The three present petitioners came forward and successfully opposed the trustee's application. The Board held that the temple was non-excepted.

(2.) The trustee moved the District Court under Section 84(2) of the Act to set aside that order and made the present petitioners respondents to his petition.

(3.) A question seems to have arisen in the District Court as to whether the petitioners were necessary parties and the learned District Judge has held that they are not, on the grounds that no relief is asked for against them and the Board may be trusted to support its own order.