Skip to content


Panattil Narayanan Nair and ors. Vs. Palappetti Vatakkepet Vallath Karunakaran Nair and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Petition No. 1079 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1952Mad32; (1951)2MLJ526
ActsMadras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 - Sections 76; Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1927
AppellantPanattil Narayanan Nair and ors.
RespondentPalappetti Vatakkepet Vallath Karunakaran Nair and ors.
Appellant AdvocateN. Sundara Ayyar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.A. Krishna Variar, Adv. for ;Seshachalapathi and ;T.K. Raman Nambisan, Advs.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases ReferredVardhanamma v. Subbarao
Excerpt:
- - clearly the board had not done its duty which is enjoined on it under section 16 of madras act ii of 1927 in passing the order which was sought to be set aside by the contesting respondents under section 76 (2) of the act......76 (2) of the act. the order was therefore rightly set aside with the observation made by the learned judge that the board would consider afresh the application for sanction on its merits. it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners here that though the board might not have considered the application on the merits, it was open to the district court to have considered the materials placed before it and come to a decision on the merits. i do not agree. i agree with viswanatha sastri, j., in vardhanamma v. subbarao' : (1949)1mlj382 that it is for the board, as a statutory body specially entrusted with the duty of considering an application for sanction under section 76, to first consider the matter and the province of the court is only to examine that order and see if it is.....
Judgment:

Rajamannar, C.J.

1. There is no reason for interference with the order of the learned Judge. Clearly the Board had not done its duty which is enjoined on it under Section 16 of Madras Act II of 1927 in passing the order which was sought to be set aside by the contesting respondents under Section 76 (2) of the Act. The order was therefore rightly set aside with the observation made by the learned Judge that the Board would consider afresh the application for sanction on its merits. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners here that though the Board might not have considered the application on the merits, it was open to the District Court to have considered the materials placed before it and come to a decision on the merits. I do not agree. I agree with Viswanatha Sastri, J., in Vardhanamma v. Subbarao' : (1949)1MLJ382 that it is for the Board, as a statutory body specially entrusted with the duty of considering an application for sanction under Section 76, to first consider the matter and the province of the Court is only to examine that order and see if it is necessary to modify or to cancel it. This civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with the costs of respondents 1 and 2.

2. In one respect, however, I think I shouldinterfere with the order of the learned Judge, insetting aside the order of the Board, he directedthe respondents 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 before him to paythe costs of the petitioners, fixing a Vakil's fee ofRs. 250. The costs as determined have come toRs. 662-12-0. Now it is clear that if any one wasto blame for what had happened, it was the Board,and I do not think it proper that the petitionersbefore me should have been mulcted with suchheavy costs in a matter In which the learned Judgedid not decide on the merits. I think the properorder which the learned Judge should have passedwas an order that parties should bear their owncosts. The order so far as costs of the lower Courtare concerned is hereby set aside.


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