Kallara Kambikanom Meathale Veetil Chindan Kaimal and Others vs Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments

Walsh, J.—In this case the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments declared that the suit temple satisfied the definition of

''temple'' in Section 9(12) of Act 2 of 1927 and therefore that the Act applies to it. The plaintiffs, who are the karnavans of a neighbouring tarwad,

contended that it was not a temple within the meaning of the Act, and they filed an application in the lower Court u/s 84(2) of the Act which was

disposed of against them. Under the ruling in Rajagopala Chettiar v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras 1934 Mad 103, no appeal

lies against such an order. At the same time they filed a suit under the general law for a declaration that the order of the Board was ultra vires. [This

suit has been dismissed on the ground that it does not lie and against this decree the present appeal is filed. Precisely, this question arose in

Iswarananda Bharathiswami v. Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Board 1931 Mad 574, and after considering a large number of

authorities it was there held that it was not open to a party to seek redress in a matter of this sort by way of suit since the remedy provided in the

Act was by way of application. It has been argued before us that this decision is wrong. But after hearing the matter fully, we are not satisfied that

there is anything wrong in this decision or that we should, express dissent from it. One case has been mentioned to us which is not considered there

and that is Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai 1927 Mad 1035. But that was a case u/s 192, Estates Land Act, where no special remedy had

been provided by the Act. In this case the remedy by way of special procedure in the civil Court has been provided in the Act and the filing, of the

suit is obviously only an attempt to get round such a possible adverse-decision as was afterwards given by the. Full Bench that the order of a civil

Court passed on an application is nob appealable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.