Skip to content


Sangapu Sangayya and ors. Vs. Pannala Venkatalakshmi Narayana Sastri and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad384; 173Ind.Cas.970; (1938)1MLJ685
AppellantSangapu Sangayya and ors.
RespondentPannala Venkatalakshmi Narayana Sastri and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....the three present petitioners came forward and successfully opposed the trustee's application. the board held that the temple was non-excepted.2. the trustee moved the district court under section 84(2) of the act to set aside that order and made the present petitioners respondents to his petition.3. a question seems to have arisen in the district court as to whether the petitioners were necessary parties and the learned district judge has held that they are not, on the grounds that no relief is asked for against them and the board may be trusted to support its own order.4. i am of opinion that since petitioners were proper parties in the petition under section 84 before the board, they are proper though perhaps not necessary parties to the application before the district judge under.....
Judgment:

Newsam, J.

1. I do not see why respondents 2 to 4 should be removed from the record. Under Section 84 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act the trustee of Sri Maleswaraswami Temple in Guntur town moved the Board to declare the temple an excepted temple. The Board issued notice to all persons interested. The three present petitioners came forward and successfully opposed the trustee's application. The Board held that the temple was non-excepted.

2. The trustee moved the District Court under Section 84(2) of the Act to set aside that order and made the present petitioners respondents to his petition.

3. A question seems to have arisen in the District Court as to whether the petitioners were necessary parties and the learned District Judge has held that they are not, on the grounds that no relief is asked for against them and the Board may be trusted to support its own order.

4. I am of opinion that since petitioners were proper parties in the petition under Section 84 before the Board, they are proper though perhaps not necessary parties to the application before the District Judge under Section 84(2).

5. I allow this petition. There will be no order as to costs.


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