The court's jurisdiction to try or determine questions of title in proceedings under Section 5 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, is not absolutely barred by Sub-section (6) but is subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4), which allow for a stay of proceedings and a decision by the court itself in certain circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a petition for revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code of an order made by the Addl. District Judge, Guntur, under section 5(5) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act XIV of 1920, directing the petitioner to render an account of the income from the trust properties for a period of three years immediately preceding 27-9-1952. The order of the District Judge was based on his findings that the petitioner's great Grandfather Lingamurty endowed certain properties under his will Ex. A-1 dated 20-1-1892 for the upkeep of a fresh water tank in the village of Garapadu and that the petitioner is in possession of these trust properties. One of the grounds set forth in the revision petition is that the lower court had no jurisdiction to take the proceedings, because Act XIV of 1920 ceased to apply, by reason of the repealing provisions of section 5(3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951. At the hearing Sri Ch. Sankara Sastri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that he is unable to argue this position, as the repeal was only in respect of religious institutions and endowments and not in respect of Charitable endowments like that in question here. The only ground on which he assails the lower court's jurisdiction is based on the fact that the petitioner claims the properties in dispute adversely to the alleged trust, as being his family properties which Lingamurthy was incompetent to dispose of by a will and as having been enjoyed by him and by his forefathers with absolute rights for over the statutory period. It is urged that this question of title raised by him could not be tried or determined by the lower court in view of sub-section (6) of section 5 of Act XIV of 1920 and therefore the lower court was incompetent to pass the order of the respondent's application under section 3 of the Act.

2. There is clearly no substance in this contention. Sub-section (6) of the Section 5 reads:

“Save as provided in this section, the court shall not try or determine any question of title between the petitioner and any person claiming title adversely to the trust.”

3. It is manifest from the opening clause that the inhibition against trying or determining questions of title is not absolute but is subject to the other provisions of section 5. These provisions are contained in sub-sections (3) and (4). Sub-section (3) says that if any person appears at the hearing of the petition under section 3 and either denies the existence of the trust or denies that the trust is one to which the Act applies and undertakes to institute within three months a suit for declaration to that effect and for any other appropriate relief, the court shall order a stay of the proceedings and, if such suit is instituted shall continue the stay until the suit is finally decided. Sub-section (4) provides that if such undertaking is not given, or if after the expiry of three months such a suit is not instituted, the court shall itself decide the question. A claim of title adversely to the trust is in effect a denial of the existence of the trust. The court dealing with a petition properly filed under section 3 is charged with the duty of itself deciding that dispute, if the person setting up adverse title does not avail of sub-section (3) and have recourse to a separate suit. The petitioner did not institute such a suit and therefore the lower court was competent to decide in a summary way whether the adverse title set up by the petitioner negatived the existence of the trust. This view of the effect of Sub-section (6) is supported by the decision in Haidarali v. Gulam Mohiuddin1.

4. Sri Ch. Sankara Sastry next contends that the findings of the learned District Judge are vitiated by his failure to take into consideration material evidence on the side if the petitioner. In his will Ex. A-1, Lingamurty stated that the endowed properties were his self-acquisition. He directed his son Yagnanarayana to