(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one by certain Archakas who had been dismissed from service by the appellant, who was then the interim trustee appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The District Munsiff of Tanuku held that there was nothing illegal in the manner in which the enquiry had been conducted and the order passed and he further held that the suit was barred by Section 43 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. He therefore dismissed the suit. In appeal to the District Judge of West Godavari, it was held that the appointment of the appellant as an interim trustee, ignoring inter alia the rights of the hereditary trustee, was ultra vires, and that therefore the suit lay. He held that Section 43 of the Act did not apply; because the competence of the appellant to act under that section had been rightly challenged. He accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken that the appeal cannot be heard unless the trustees appointed by an order of the 30 September, 1947, are brought on record in the place of the present appellant who was by that order removed. The appellant appealed to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board against the order of the 30 September; but the appeal has not yet been disposed of.
(3.) Two decisions of this Court, i.e., Sivakasi Viswanathasami Devastanam V/s. Koodalinga Nadan (1933) 66 M.L.J. 380, which was followed by another Bench of this Court in Ittunan Panik-kar V/s. Narayana Bharatikal (1946) F.L.J. 110 : (1947) 1 M.L.J. I27 (F.C), were roughly to the effect that if a suit was properly instituted by a particular plaintiff, the suit could continue even though in the meanwhile he had lost the status under which he had filed the suit. It is however unnecessary to consider this question at any length; because the appellant was not impleaded as a trustee of the institution, but personally; and the decree of the lower Court ordered costs to be paid by him.