Sherfuddin Ahmed, J.
1. The revision is directed against the order of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali dated 3-1-1970 made in C. M. P. No. 241/1969 whereby he has directed the Ex. Managing Trustee. Sri Malleswaraswami Temple, to hand over all the properties and records to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of the order.
2. A petition was filed Under Section 93 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act against the petitioner herein i.e., Ex-Managing Trustee alleging that he was in possession of the records and properties of the temple as his term of office had expired by efflux of time and the petitioner has been elected as the Managing Trustee, the respondent should be directed to deliver the records and the properties of the same. The respondent, Ex-Managing Trustee, contended that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and not valid. He also stated that he filed an application against the appointment of the two trustees excluding the petitioner and had obtained stay of the appointment order and as such the petitioner would not be deemed to have been legally elected as the Managing Trustee. He had no locus standi to demand the records. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the material placed before him held that the appointment of the petitioner could not be challenged Under Section 93 (4) of the Act and in view of the provision contained therein he was not competent to go into that question. On the face of the record he held that the petitioner had been duly elected as the trustee of the temple and his election was not liable to be challenged. In that view he directed the petitioner-respondent to deliver the records within 30 days from the date of the order. It is against this order that this revision case has been filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the decision in M. Surya Rao v. Venkata Raju (1966) 2 Andh WR 212 and Satya-narayana v. Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple 1964-2 Andh WR 256 the Magistrate was not justified in refusing to go into the question as to the validity of election of the respondent as managing trustee. In both the cases cited above which were decided with reference to Section 87 of the old Act it was held that as the competency of the managing trustee to sue was a jurisdictional matter the Magistrate was competent to go into the question as to the validity of his appointment; Under the new Act, however, Section 93 (4) has laid down that the order of appointment of the successor and the certificate referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) shall not be called in question in the proceedings before the Magistrate under this Section. Having regard to this amendment and the explanation of the word 'successor' in Section 93 (c) (i), I am inclined to agree with the lower court that the question of appointment of the successor could not be called in question before him. Even otherwise it is an admitted fact that the respondent herein was duly appointed as a trustee. Even in that capacity he could institute proceedings against the Ex. Managing Trustee whose term of office had expired and who was not competent to retain the records with him. No doubt the proceedings have been instituted by the respondent herein as Managing Trustee of the said temple. But that would not debar from exercising the powers validly vested in him Under Section 93 of the Act. Further it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the election of the respondent as managing trustee was even prior to the stay of the proceedings by the authority before whom the appeal was filed. The Magistrate has observed that the minute book did not show that the procedure prescribed for the election of the Chairman had been followed. But then the question could only be gone into if the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the proceedings was open to challenge. Under the provisions of Section 93 (4) of the Act, however, the Magistrate is no longer competent to question the order of appointment of the successor and the certificate referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2). I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the Magistrate does not call for interference. The revision case is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner will hand over the records as directed by the: lower court within three weeks from today.