The suit under S.114(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act is a continuation of the proceeding under sub-section (1) and the notice under S.124(1) is not necessary in such cases.

1. The appellants' suit under S.114(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act has been dismissed by the lower court for want of notice under S.124(1) of the same Act; and the question for consideration is whether that decision is correct.

2. S. 114 reads:

"(1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution falls within the term 'institution' as defined in Part II of this Act, such dispute shall be decided by the Board and the decision of the Board shall be published in the Gazette.

(2) Any person affected by a decision of the Board under sub-section (1) may within six months from the date of publication of the decision of the Board in the Gazette, institute a suit in the court to modify or set aside such decision.

(3) Subject to the final decree in the suit provided for in sub-section (2), the decision of the Board shall be final."

S. 124 (1) lays down that no suit shall be instituted against the Board until the expiration of two months after a notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of the Board stating the cause of action, the relief sought and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. The other sub-section of the section is not relevant.

3. The argument of the appellants' counsel is that the suit under S.114 (2) is only a continuation of the proceeding under sub-section (1) of the same section; and the finality of the decision of the Board under sub-section (1) is only subject to the result of the suit under sub-section (2). That is what is provided by subsection (3). On the other hand, the contention of the Board, which found favour with the lower court, is that the notice contemplated by S.124(1) is akin to the notice under S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that the compliance with such notice is absolute and cannot be relaxed in any suit whatever.

4. The counsel of the Board has invited my attention to two or three decisions of the Madras High Court arising under S.14 of the Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act of 1923. The relevant provisions of the Act provide for the fixation of boundaries by the survey officer in case of dispute; and S.14 provides for a suit by any party aggrieved by the decision of the survey officer. S.13 lays down that unless the survey is modified by the decree in the suit under S.14, the determination by the survey officer shall be conclusive. The first decision is Rangasami Goundan v. Ramanatha Malayandi Errappa Gounder AIR. 1934 Mad. 537, wherein Venkatasubba Rao, J., has held that the statutory suit prescribed by S.14 is a suit within the meaning of S.49 of the Madras Court of Wards Act. S.49 of the Court of Wards Act provides that no suit relating to the person or property of a ward shall be instituted in any civil court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the office of the District Collector, etc. The argument is that S.49 of the Court of Wards Act is similar to S.80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also to S.124(1) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The counsel has also drawn my attention to two more decisions under" the same provisions; and they are Srimathu Raja Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Doraisingam v. Muthu K.R.M. Muthayya Chettiar AIR. 1936 Mad. 583 by Varadachariar, J., and Province of Madras v. Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Varma Maharajulungaru AIR. 1943 Mad. 284 by Happell, J. These decisions hold that in a suit to set aside the order of the survey officer under S.14 of the Surveys and Boundaries Act against the Court of Wards, the notice under S.49 of the Court of Wards Act has to be given.

5. On the other hand, the counsel of the appellants draws my attention to the Division Bench ruling of the Patna High Court in Hiraluxmi Pandit v. Income-tax Officer AIR. 1955 Patna 404. Sinha, J., who spoke for the Court, observes in Para.8 of the judgment that though th