1. In this case the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments declared that the suit temple satisfied the definition of 'temple' in Section 9(12) of Act 2 of 1927 and therefore that the Act applies to it. The plaintiffs, who are the karnavans of a neighbouring tarwad, contended that it was not a temple within the meaning of the Act, and they filed an application in the lower Court under Section 84(2) of the Act which was disposed of against them. Under the ruling in Rajagopala Chettiar v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras 1934 Mad 103, no appeal lies against such an order. At the same time they filed a suit under the general law for a declaration that the order of the Board was ultra vires. [This suit has been dismissed on the ground that it does not lie and against this decree the present appeal is filed. Precisely, this question arose in Iswarananda Bharathiswami v. Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Board 1931 Mad 574, and after considering a large number of authorities it was there held that it was not open to a party to seek redress in a matter of this sort by way of suit since the remedy provided in the Act was by way of application. It has been argued before us that this decision is wrong. But after hearing the matter fully, we are not satisfied that there is anything wrong in this decision or that we should, express dissent from it. One case has been mentioned to us which is not considered there and that is Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai 1927 Mad 1035. But that was a case under Section 192, Estates Land Act, where no special remedy had been provided by the Act. In this case the remedy by way of special procedure in the civil Court has been provided in the Act and the filing, of the suit is obviously only an attempt to get round such a possible adverse-decision as was afterwards given by the. Full Bench that the order of a civil Court passed on an application is nob appealable. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.