SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(AP) 156

P.CHANDRA REDDY, SRINIVASA CHARI
Bathula Krishna Brahmam – Appellant
Versus
Daram Chenchi Reddy – Respondent


CHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed against the orders of different First Class Magistrates directing delivery of the properties to the trustees appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 87 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act ). A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of these petitions on the ground that the First Class Magistrate exercises only executive functions under Section 87 and does not act in a judicial capacity and that, at any rate, it was not as a Court that he exercises jurisdiction but as a persona designata. These arguments are based on a judgment of Justice Bhimasankaram in Anjayya v. Venkateswara Das, 1958-1 Andh WR 283.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the points involved in these revision cases, it is useful to set out the relevant sections of the Act and of the Criminal Procedure Cede (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code ). Section 87 of the Act (omitting the unnecessary portions) runs thus: "87. Where a person has been appointed -- (a) as trustee or executive officer of a religious institution, (b) to discharge the functions































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top