Skip to content


Adiraja Arasarada Kinnyakka Ballah Vs. Badeltu Naranappayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1947Mad33; (1946)2MLJ111
AppellantAdiraja Arasarada Kinnyakka Ballah
RespondentBadeltu Naranappayya and ors.
Excerpt:
- - it is perfectly clear that the order of the board had become final as the petitioner had not taken the appropriate steps to set it aside at the time when the application for delivery was made......trustees excluding him as the right of appointment of trustees lay in the jain committee. the learned district judge of south kanara allowed the petition because, in his opinion, as the petitioner had taken no steps to set aside the order of appointment of trustees made by the board, that order had become final.2. it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to raise the question in an application under section 78 because the order of the board was without jurisdiction. i do not accept this argument. it is perfectly clear that the order of the board had become final as the petitioner had not taken the appropriate steps to set it aside at the time when the application for delivery was made. an application for delivery under section 78 is in the nature of an.....
Judgment:

Happell, J.

1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application under Section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for delivery of the properties of a temple in South Kanara. The application for delivery under Section 78 was opposed by the petitioner who had been a hereditary trustee of the temple, on the ground that the Hindu Religious Endowments Board had no jurisdiction to appoint trustees excluding him as the right of appointment of trustees lay in the Jain Committee. The learned District Judge of South Kanara allowed the petition because, in his opinion, as the petitioner had taken no steps to set aside the order of appointment of trustees made by the Board, that order had become final.

2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to raise the question in an application under Section 78 because the order of the Board was without jurisdiction. I do not accept this argument. It is perfectly clear that the order of the Board had become final as the petitioner had not taken the appropriate steps to set it aside at the time when the application for delivery was made. An application for delivery under Section 78 is in the nature of an application for execution and it is not open to a person objecting to an application for delivery made under that section to question the order of appointment of the trustee who has made the application. In my opinion, the decision of the District Judge is right. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //