Skip to content


C. Gangadhara Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Paramahamsa Parivrajaka Chariar, Tirumalai, Tirupathi Peria Koil Kelvi Appan Govinda Ramanuja Pedda Jeeyangar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad905; 108Ind.Cas.793
AppellantC. Gangadhara Mudaliar and anr.
RespondentParamahamsa Parivrajaka Chariar, Tirumalai, Tirupathi Peria Koil Kelvi Appan Govinda Ramanuja Pedda
Cases ReferredArumugha Thambiran v. Namasiwaya Pandara Sannadhi A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....ware not entitled to bring the suit. it is contended by mr. k krishnaswamy iyengar that the learned judge refused to entertain the suit on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. but he is not quite correct there. what the learned judge held was that the petitioners could not bring the suit on account of the passing of the religious endowments act of 19 25. he was not right in holding that after the passing of the religious endowments act, worshippers who had instituted suits before the passing of the act, could not continue them. there is nothing in the religious endowments act, which could take away the right of persons who were parties to pending actions at the time of the passing of the act. this action having been brought before the passing of the act, the right of the.....
Judgment:

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Chingleput returning a plaint on the ground that the plaintiffs ware not entitled to bring the suit. It is contended by Mr. K Krishnaswamy Iyengar that the learned Judge refused to entertain the suit on the ground that he had no jurisdiction. But he is not quite correct there. What the learned Judge held was that the petitioners could not bring the suit on account of the passing of the Religious Endowments Act of 19 25. He was not right in holding that after the passing of the Religious Endowments Act, worshippers who had instituted suits before the passing of the Act, could not continue them. There is nothing in the Religious Endowments Act, which could take away the right of persons who were parties to pending actions at the time of the passing of the Act. This action having been brought before the passing of the Act, the right of the plaintiffs was not taken away by anything contained in the Act. What the learned Judge seems to think is that by implication this point was specifically decided by a Bench of this Court in a case in Arumugha Thambiran v. Namasiwaya Pandara Sannadhi A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 162 and it is unnecessary to consider whether he is right or wrong. The Act of 1927, Section 57 (4), makes it clear that any person having an interest could bring a suit for modifying a scheme in existence. As there is no question of jurisdiction involved in the order I decline to set it aside. I dismiss the application without costs, with the remark that it is open to plaintiffs to represent the plaint to the Court if they are so advised.


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