Back
1949 Supreme(SC) 8
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD PORTER, SIR MADHAVAN NAIR AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
N. S. VENKATAGIRI AYYANGAR - Appellant
Versus
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD, MADRAS - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : January 24, 1949.
Solicitors for appellants: Lambert & White.
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows revision only for jurisdictional errors. A subordinate court's erroneous decision on a question of law or fact does not constitute "acting illegally or with material irregularity" if the court possessed the jurisdiction to decide the matter.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Revision - Scope and limits - High Court cannot interfere in revision simply because it differs from the conclusions of the subordinate court on questions of fact or law - Section 115 applies only to jurisdictional errors: (a) exercising jurisdiction not vested by law, (b) failing to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or (c) acting in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity - An erroneous decision on a question of law or fact, where the court has jurisdiction to determine the question, does not amount to acting illegally or with material irregularity.
(B) Interpretation of "illegally" and "material irregularity" - "Illegally" refers to a breach of some provision of law, and "material irregularity" refers to an error of procedure in the course of the trial which may have affected the ultimate decision - Where the legislature has provided no right of appeal, the manifest intention is that the order of the trial court, right or wrong, shall be final, provided it is within jurisdiction and not reached through illegal or materially irregular means.
Facts of the case:
A temple founded by a will was declared a public temple by a statutory board. The trustees challenged this declaration, and the District Judge held the temple to be private. The High Court, in revision, set aside this finding on the ground that the District Judge had made a serious mistake in the construction of the will, which the High Court deemed a material misuse of jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in treating a serious error of law as a ground for revision. The District Judge had the jurisdiction to decide the question of the temple's status and did so; therefore, even if the conclusion was erroneous, it did not constitute an illegal exercise of jurisdiction or a material irregularity.
Issues: Whether the High Court has the power to interfere in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the subordinate court arrived at an erroneous construction of a document.
Ratio Decidendi: Revision is limited to jurisdictional errors. If a court has jurisdiction to decide a question and does so, an erroneous conclusion on a question of law or fact does not constitute "acting illegally or with material irregularity" within the meaning of Section 115(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
revision
- section 115 cpc
-
revision
-
civil procedure
-
administrative law
-
religious endowments
- temple status
-
religious endowments
Judgement
Law Rep. 76 Ind. App. 67 ( 1948- 1949)
N. S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu Religious 23
Appeal (No. 94 of 1947), by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court (November 6, 1944) which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura (August 7, 1943).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The only matter which arose for determination in this appeal, and on which special leave to appeal was granted, was whether the learned judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the order of the District Judge.
On July 1, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation. In 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Mad. Act II of 1927) (hereinafter, with its amendments, referred to as the “Act") was passed. The Act authorized the creation of a Hindu Religious Endowment Board and empowered it to take over control of temples dedicated to the use of the public. Section 63 of the Act empowered the board to settle a scheme of administration for the endowments connected with a math or temple. Section 84 of the Act was in the following terms
" (1.) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a " math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple " is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the " Board.
" (2.) Any person affected by a decision under sub-section (1.) may, within one year, apply to the Court to " modify or set aside such decision ; but, subject to the result " of such application, the order of the Board shall be final.”
The respondent board was duly constituted under the Act, and, in or about the year 1930, demanded a contribution under the Act for the upkeep of the temple constituted by the will of Narayana from N.S. Narayana, another grandson of the testator, though representing a different branch from the appellants. The said N. S. Narayana objected to paying on the ground that the temple was a private one. On January 15, 1931, the respondent, having decided to hold an inquiry under s. 84 of the Act, served a notice on N. S. Narayana informing him that his contention that the temple was a private one would be heard by the board on February 26, 1931, and that he should appear either in person or by counsel. On August 4, 1931, the respondent, having held an inquiry at which N. S. Narayana had been represented, declared the temple to be a public one which was to be classed as an excepted one under the Act. The contention of the appellants was that the said N. S. Narayana was not at the date of those proceedings a trustee of the temple, that the order was never served on the trustees, and that the appellants were not bound thereby. In 1933, the respondent asked Sadagopa, another grandson of the testator, to make a contribution out of the temple funds. Sadagopa objected to the levy on the ground that it was illegal. On September 8, 1933, the respondent ordered the cancellation of the contribution demanded from the temple funds. From 1933 to 1937 the respondent did not appear to have made any further demand for contribution ; but in 1938 the respondent asked for a contribution from the appellants, who refused to pay on the ground that the temple was a private one. In answer to that refusal the respondent, on January 19, 1938, wrote a letter to the appellants in the following terms "Sir,
" Reference—Your letter dated 3.1. 1938, regarding " recovery of contribution, I have to state that your " contention that the temple is Private is untenable as " the temple was already declared by the Board in its order " No. 820, dated 4.8. 1931, to be an Excepted Temple " as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments " Act, 1926, and a
