RAO SAHEB DR ANANDA BALIGA Vs. SRIMAT ANANTESWAR TEMPLE MANJESWAR
LAWS(MAD)-1952-1-6
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on January 22,1952

RAO SAHEB DR.ANANDA BALIGA Appellant
VERSUS
SRIMAT ANANTESWAR TEMPLE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Satyanarayana Rao, J. - (1.) The plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed on a preliminary point by the lower court is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was instituted under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, with the leave of the court on behalf of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmin Community in South Kanara; and two reliefs were claimed in the plaint with reference to the suit temple which is at present being managed by an executive officer appointed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board in 1939 as the temple was notified under the Act (Vide Ex. B. l). The reliefs which the plaintiff claimed in 'the plaint were two: (1) a declaration that the first defendant temple belongs to and is of the exclusive right of the members of the Gowd Saraswat Brahmin Community of South Kanara who alone have the exclusive right of management and performing the puja therein; (2) a permanent injunction restraining the second defendant from introducing any form of 'agama' ritual or mode of worship in the said temple other than the existing form, contrary to the well-established custom and usage. The suit was instituted on the 16th of April 1947 and the objection taken was that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927). The contention was upheld by the lower court. Hence this appeal.
(2.) Since the decision in the case, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927, was repealed by the Madras Hindu Religious Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (XIX of 1951) but the rules and the notifications issued under the repealed Act have been continued by Section 103 of the new Act.
(3.) The suit being of a civil nature it remains to consider whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away either expressly or impliedly by any of the provisions of Act II of 1927. Our observations regarding the provisions of Act II of 1927 which have been relied on as barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would equally apply to the corresponding provisions of the new Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to refer in the course of the judgment to the provisions of the new Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.