Skip to content


Arunachala Pillai Vs. Ponnusami Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 608 of 1947
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad404
ActsMadras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927; Madras Hindu Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act, 1946 - Sections 84(3)
AppellantArunachala Pillai
RespondentPonnusami Naidu and anr.
Appellant AdvocateA.V. Narayanaswami Iyer, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.V. Ramachandra Iyer and ;M. Seshachalapathi, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....x [10] of 1946, which abolished the distinction made by the former act between excepted and non-excepted temples.2. the order would doubtless be unappealable under the original act, but, it is urged for the appellant, that the right of appeal given by sub-section (3) of section 84 as amended covers the order. this, in my opinion, is not a correct way of reading the sub-section of the amended section. the right of appeal given by the sub-section must be understood in the context and setting of the amended section only as referring to an order, as such declaring or not declaring a trustee, a hereditary trustee. it cannot obviously refer to a decision that a person is not a hereditary trustee involved in an order that a temple is not an excepted temple, made under the original act.3. i.....
Judgment:

Raghava Rao, J.

1. It is objected for the respondent that this appeal does not lie. This appeal is one preferred against an order of the learned District Judge of Salem declaring a certain temple non-excepted, the order was made on 13th March 1946, and on 2nd April 1946, Section 84 of Madras Act II [2] of 1927 came to be modified by Section 40 of Madras Act X [10] of 1946, which abolished the distinction made by the former Act between excepted and non-excepted temples.

2. The order would doubtless be unappealable under the original Act, but, it is urged for the appellant, that the right of appeal given by Sub-section (3) of Section 84 as amended covers the order. This, in my opinion, is not a correct way of reading the sub-section of the amended section. The right of appeal given by the sub-section must be understood in the context and setting of the amended section only as referring to an order, as such declaring or not declaring a trustee, a hereditary trustee. It cannot obviously refer to a decision that a person is not a hereditary trustee involved in an order that a temple is not an excepted temple, made under the original Act.

3. I accept the preliminary objection and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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