K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) RISAL Singh son of Bindra Singh, a resident of village Terha, Pargana Sumerpur, district Hamirpur, created religious endowment for the temple of Thakurji Ram Jankiji. He gifted certain land and created a trust for the temple by a registered document dated 23-9-1932. According to the Trust deed after the death of RISAL Singh, his nephew Gajedhar Singh son of Shivraj Singh, was to be the Manager and thereafter only such a person could be elected Sarbarakar who was lineal descendant of RISAL Singh provided he was religious and fit for the said office. In due course of time Sukhram Singh became Manager and Sarbarakar of the temple. Baijnath Singh and others, opposite parties, made an application under section 18 of the Religious Endowment Act, No. XX of 1963, on 10-12-1974 seeking permission to institute a suit against the Manager and Sarbarakar. The District Judge granted permission to the opposite parties to institute a suit against the applicant by his order dated 3-5-1978. The applicant thereupon filed a revision application in this Court.
(2.) THE revision application came up for hearing before Hon'ble Satish Chandra, C. J. An objection was raised by the counsel for the applicant that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghubar Dial v. Kesho Ramanuj Dass, (1889) ILR-XI Alld. 18 the Religious Endowment Act, 1863, (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XX of 1863) was not applicable to religious endowment which came into existence after 1863 and as such the District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant permission. On behalf of the opposite parties a number of decisions of this Court and other Courts were relied upon in support of his contention that Act XX of 1863 was applicable to a religious endowment which may have come into being even after 1863. Since Raghubar Dial's case was decided by a Full Bench of three Judges the learned Chief Justice referred the following question to a larger Bench :- " Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Religious Endowment Act, 1863, was applicable ". The Act No. XX of 1863 was enacted to make provision relating to endowments for the support of mosques, Hindu temples and other religious purposes. Prior to Act No. XX of 1863, the control, superintendence of mosques, temples and other religious endowment of public nature were regulated by Bengal Regulation XIX of 1810, which was enforced in the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal and Regulation VII of 1817 which was enforced in the Presidency of Fort Saint George. The Regulations made provision for appropriation of the rents and produce of lands granted for the support of mosques, Hindu temples and colleges or other public purposes. Under the aforesaid Regulations mosques, temples and religious endowments were those mosques and temples for the support of which endowments were granted in land by the Government or by individuals. Under the regulations the power of general superintendence of the lands vested in the Board of Revenue. Section 3 of Regulation XIX of 1810 imposed a duty on the Board of Revenue to take care that all endowments made for the manitenance of establishments be duly appropriated for the purpose for which they were destined by the Government or the individuals by whom such endowments were made. The Regulations contained provision prescribing the mode in which this duty was to be performed. The Board was empowered to appoint agents to carry on its duties and functions which in most cases were the Collectors of the district. The agents were empowered to make recommendation for the nomination to the office of trustee, manager or superintendent. The Board of Revenue was empowered to make appointment and nomination for the office of trustee or superintendent. Under the aforesaid provision the Collector of the district and the Board of Revenue were controlling the management of the land which formed subject matter of endowment, but in majority of instances the Board of Revenue did not take charge of the land which had been granted by individuals for support of temples and mosques. It appears that the need was realised that the Board of Revenue and the Collector should be relieved of the burden of the management of the land which they had taken charge in accordance with the Regulations; in order to effectuate this purpose Act XX of 1863 was passed by the Legislature. Section 1 of the 1863 Act repealed Regulation XIX of 1810 of the Bengal Code and Regulation VII of 1817 of the Madras Code as relating to endowments for the support of mosques, Hindu temples and other religious purposes. Section 3 confers powers on the local Government to make special provision relating to mosque and temples in respect to which Regulation XIX of 1810 and VII of 1817 applied and the nomination of the trustee, manager or superintendent vested in the Government at the time the 1863 Act was enacted. Special provisions are found in sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which confer power on the Government to appoint one or more committees in every division of the district and to transfer to those committees all the land or other property which previously had been under the management of the Government officers. Section 4 deals with another class of cases, namely, the cases in which the trustee, manager or superintendent was not appointed by the Government nor was the appointment subject to confirmation by the Government. Provisions relating to this class are contained in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1863 Act. Section 13 enjoins upon every trustee, manager or superintendent of a mosque, temple or religious establishment to keep regular accounts. Section 14 lays down that any person or persons interested in any mosque, temple or religious establishment or in the performance of the worship or of the service thereof, or of the trusts relating thereto, may, without joining as plaintiff any of the other persons interested therein, file suit against the manager, trustee or superintendent of the mosque, temple or religious establishment for any misfeasance, breach of trust or neglect of duty committed by them. The civil court is empowered to direct specific performance of any act of such trustee, manager, superintendent or member of the committee and it may further pass a decree awarding damages and costs against such manager, trustee, superintendent or a member of the committee. The court is further authorised under the Act to direct removal of such trustee, manager or superintendent. Sections 13 and 14 are general in nature. The provisions contained therein apply to all religious endowments including manager, trustee or superintendent to whom the provisions of Regulation XIX were applicable. Mosques, temples or other religious establishments, as mentioned in sections 4, 13 and 14 of the 1863 Act do not mean those mosques, temples or religious establishments in respect to which religious endowment has been established prior to the enactment of the 1863 Act, instead it appears that the 1863 Act applies to any mosque, temple or religious establishment for the support of which provision has been made by the Government or private individuals. The purpose and object of section 14 appears to be to confer right on the persons interested in the worship, maintenance or welfare of the mosque, temple or other religious establishment to approach the court for removal of the trustee or member of the committee. The District Judge has been invested with the power to investigate into the affairs of the endowment and religious establishment. Section 14 does not restrict its application as suggested by the applicant.
(3.) THE question in the instant case has arisen on account of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghubar Dial's case. In that case the question referred to the Full Bench was with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the Hindu Law by the plaintiff with reference to section 30 and 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1863. Straight, J. held that the suit was not maintainable under the Hindu law, as the trust was one for public religious purpose, therefore the suit was not maintainable without the sanction required by section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE learned Judge further held that even if section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inapplicable and the Religious Endowment Act XX of 1863 would apply, the suit could not be maintained without the sanction required by that Act. Sir John Edge, C. J. also held that the suit must fail for non-compliance with the provisions of section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE learned Chief Justice without considering the provisions of Act XX of 1863 in detail made the following observation : "I may say also that I also fail to see how Act XX of 1863 can apply in this case. THE temple and Trust, if there was one, came into existence in 1870, and was not in existence at the date of that Act." Tyrrel, J. concurred with the opinion expressed by the learned Chief Justice. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the Full Bench, it is evident that the question whether section 14 of the Act XX of 1863 was applicable to a mosque, temple or trust which may have come into existence after 1863 was not necessary to be decided for purposes of the case. Sir John Edge, C. J. merely made a passing observation without analysing the provisions of the Act or the Regulations. The learned Chief Justice John Edge himself realised this position in Sheo Ratun Kunweri v. Ram Pargash, (1896) ILR XVIII Alld. 227. In that case the plaintiff had brought a suit under section 14 of Act XX of 1863 to remove certain persons from the office of trustee of temple and to have the assignment and encumbrances created by the trustees set aside and to obtain appointment of new trustee or trustees. The suit was contested by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the District Judge had no jurisdiction as the Act XX of 1863 did not apply as the endowment in question was one to which the Board of Revenue had not appointed trustee and the nomination of the trustee was not shown to have been vested in the Board of Revenue under Regulation XIX of 1810. The District Judge decreed the suit partly. The Division Bench consisting of Sir John Edge, C. J. and Justice Burkitt held that the District Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 14 of Act XX of 1863 as section 14 was not confined to those endowments, nominations to which have been exercised or had been vested in the Board of Revenue or Regulation XIX of 1910.;