Horace Owen Compton Besley, Kt., C.J.
1. This petition at the instance of Krishnan Pandalai, J., has been referred to a Bench although our learned brother himself felt very little doubt that the order in this case was wrong.
2. The facts of the case are that under Section 78 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act the petitioner, being a trustee of a temple, appointed under the Act, obtained an order from the District Court against an obstructor directing him to deliver up the temple and its properties to the petitioner. The obstructor disobeyed that order. The petitioner then applied to the District Court to cause delivery of possession to be given to him by an officer of the Court. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable to the Religious Endowments Act which, in his opinion, is a self-contained Code and the order contemplated under Section 78 of the Act is not a decree which can be enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 78 of the Act enables the Court on application by a person appointed as trustee by the Committee or the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and on production of the order of appointment to order the delivery to such person of possession of the mutt, etc., where such person is resisted in or prevented from obtaining such possession. If the view of the learned District Judge is correct, it means that, although the Court may make an order for delivery of possession, it cannot enforce its order. That, it seems to me, is a position that can hardly have been intended by the legislature which must, in giving the Court jurisdiction under Section 78 to make orders for the delivery of possession, have impliedly granted the power of doing all acts necessary to the execution of its order. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, V Edition, p. 575.) It is obvious that the power to make orders would be useless if these could not be enforced. In National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Postmaster-General (1913) A.C. 546 Viscount Haldane, L.C., at page 552 stated:
When a question is stated to be referred to an established Court without more, it, in my opinion, imports that the ordinary incidents of the procedure of that Court are to attach, and also that any general right of appeal from its decisions likewise attaches.
3. At page 555 Lord Atkinson stated:
It is simply the question of extending the jurisdiction of an existing Court of law, with all its incidents including a right of appeal, to a new matter closely resembling in character those matters over which it has already jurisdiction as a Court of law
and at page 557 Lord Shaw stated:
In the general case, when a Court of record (which the Railway and Canal Commission is by the Act of 1888, Section 2,) becomes possessed, by force of agreement and statute, of a reference to it of differences between parties, the whole of the statutory consequences of procedure before such a Court ensue.
4. This case shows that, when once a Court is given a jurisdiction, the necessary consequences flow from its exercise of such jurisdiction without any express words. In my opinion, the learned District Judge came to a wrong conclusion in this case and the Court's order can be enforced in the usual way in which orders for the delivery of possession are enforced. This Civil Revision Petition must, therefore, be allowed with costs both here and in the Court below, the order of the Lower Court set aside and the case remanded to the District Court for disposal according to law.
5. I agree.