Raghavan J.):

1. The question of law referred to us by the division bench which is hearing this appeal is whether S.7 and 7B of Act 1 of 1964, as amended by Act 35 of 1969, are ultra vires the Constitution.

2. The facts are these: The property in suit, 46 acres of garden land, belongs to a devaswam, and the present suit, brought on its behalf by its hereditary trustee, is for recovery of possession of the property with mesne profits from the hands of the defendants on the allegation that they are in unlawful possession on the strength of a void lease deed, Ext. Al dated 12 91954, executed in favour of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant's father, the then hereditary trustee who died in January 1958. In 1942, soon after the dismissal of a suit brought by him to set aside a notification made by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board under S.65A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, this trustee had granted a lease of the property for over five years in favour of one Rocky in violation of S.76 of that Act. In the same year, the executive officer appointed by the Endowments Board, who had taken over the management of the devaswam, sued for the recovery o