CHANDRA REDDY, J. :- I agree with the conclusions of my learned brother. The relevant facts are set out in his judgment and it is not necessary to recapitulate them here. The subject-matter of this appeal is a petition under S. 84 (2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act filed by Sri Raghavendraswami Mutt by its head Sri Swayamindra Thirta Sri Padangalavaru by power of attorney holder Ritti Krishtamachar in the Court of the District Judge, Bellary to set aside an order passed by the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, declaring the institution as a mutt as defined in the Madras Religious Endowments Act. The petitioner being unsuccessful there has brought this appeal.

2. Mr. Kuppuswamy appearing in support of this appeal urged two main contentions, that the institution is not a mutt but only a tomb of a saint known as Sri Raghavendraswamy who was the predecessor of the present Matadhipathi or at any rate it is only a branch of the main mutt situated at Nanjangud and that the decision rendered previously by the same Board in the year 1928 operates as a bar to the present order and that the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter called the