PARANKUSAM RANGACHARYULU Vs. PERNAMITTA VENKATANARASIMHAYYA, TRUSTEE OF SRI CHENNA KESAVASWAMI TEMPLE INCLUDING THE MINOR SHRINE SRI RANGANADHASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions were preferred against the orders of the learned District Judge of Guntur (except C R.P. No. 1676 of 1947, in which the order was passed by the District Judge of Kistna) passed under Section 78 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1926 (Act II of 1327) as amended by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act of 1946 (Act X of 1946). As these revision petitions raised important questions of law regarding the interpretation of Section 78 of the Act as amended in 1946, my learned brother, Panchapagesa Sastri, J., referred them to a Bench, and they are now before us.

(2.) Nine applications were filed in the lower Court under Section 78 by the trustees appointed either by the Board or by the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for delivery of possession of immoveable properties in the possession of the archakas who were the respondents in the petitions in the Court below and are the petitioners before us. The properties in question have been in continuous possession of the archakas for a considerably long period, and the claim by them was that the lands In dispute were granted to their predecessors in title burdened with service to the temples concerned while the trustees contended that they belonged to the temples. Besides this question of title to the property, there were other objections raised regarding maintainability of the petitions. The Court below overruled the contentions of the archakas and directed delivery of possession of the properties.

(3.) In these revision petitions we are not concerned with the merits of the claim put forward by the archakas but are mainly concerned with the objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions. The finding of the learned District Judge on the question of title was not canvassed before us, and therefore it is not necessary to deal with it. If the petitions are otherwise maintainable, the trustees would be entitled to recover possession of the property, as the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of title to the property stands unchallenged.