Doraiswami Reddiar vs Gurunatha Iyer and Others

Somasundaram, J.—This is a revision against the Order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ulundurpet in Crl. M.P. No. 251 of 1955. The

application was made by the respondent u/s 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for the issue of an order directing the

delivery of the properties mentioned in the schedule therein to him from the petitioner. The lower Court has, in my opinion, very rightly passed the

order directing the petitioner herein to deliver the properties to the respondent. It is against that order that this revision has been filed by the

hereditary trustee, the petitioner herein. A preliminary objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent, i.e., the trustee appointed by

the Board, that this petition should not have been filed as a criminal revision petition and that the petition must be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs.

25 as the petition will lie under the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution. That preliminary objection is met by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner who contends that a criminal revision petition would lie. Mr. Arunachalam Ayyar for the respondent relies on a decision, Mt. Mithan and

Another Vs. Municipal Board of Orai and State of U.P., , in support of his contention that this is a special jurisdiction conferred upon the

Magistrate, and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to this. As against this learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a

decision of this Court in Srinivasa Reddiar and Others Vs. P. Krishnaswami Reddiar and Others, . A Bench of this Court consisting of my Lord

the Chief Justice and Rajagopala Aiyangar, J., have held that the order passed in revisions like this should be deemed to be an order passed in the

exercise of Criminal jurisdiction. This decision is binding on me and, therefore, I hold disagreeing with the contentions of the learned Counsel for

the respondent, that this is a criminal revision petition and that the petition need not be stamped as contended for by the respondent. As regards the

petition, the learned Counsel points out that the certificate that has been granted in this case has not been signed, but only contains a facsimile

signature of the officer concerned. I have held in D.D. Krishnaswami Iyengar and Another Vs. A.C. Veeranna Chetty, , that a certificate referred

to in Section 87 of the Act must be signed by the Commissioner and it is not sufficient if it bears merely a facsimile signature. It is not disputed that

this certificate contains only the facsimile signature, and, therefore, the certificate has not been duly issued by the officer concerned. It is on this

technical point alone that I set aside this petition. It is open to the respondent to obtain another duly signed certificate from the officer concerned

and apply for the possession of the properties, and the Magistrate will pass then an order according to law. The present order is therefore set aside

and the petition is allowed.