John Beaumont, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated November 6, 1944, which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madras dated August 7, 1943.
(2.)THE only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and on which special leave to appeal was granted, is whether the learned Judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the said order of the District Judge.
On July 1, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation.

In 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Mad. Act II of 1927) (hereinafter with its amendments referred to as the "act") was passed. The Act authorised the creation of a Hindu Religious Endowment Board and empowered it to take over control of temples dedicated to the use of the public. Section 68 of the Act empowered the Board to settle a scheme of administration for the endowments connected with a math or temple. Section 84 of the Act was in the following terms: (1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board. (2) Any person affected by a decision under subsection (1) may, within one year, apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decision; but, subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final.

(3.)THE respondent Board was duly constituted under the Act, and, in or about the year 1930, demanded a contribution under the Act for the upkeep of the said temple constituted by the will of Narayana from N. S. Narayana, another grandson of the testator, though representing a different branch from the appellants. THE said N. S. Narayana objected to pay on the ground that the temple was a private one.
On January 15, 1931, the respondent, having decided to hold an inquiry under Section 84 of the Act, served a notice on N. S. Narayana informing him that his contention that the temple was a private one, would be heard by the Board on February 26, 1981, and that he should appear either in person or by counsel.