The legal interpretation of documents and statutory provisions under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

These review petitions with CM Applications seeking condonation of delay are filed by the Malabar Devaswom Board, represented by its Commissioner. It appears that the matter was moved before the Honourable Supreme Court for Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment now sought to be reviewed. When those petitions for Special Leave to Appeal came up for consideration, they were withdrawn and these review petitions are filed.

2. Though there are applications seeking condonation of delay, we thought it fit to hear the learned counsel for the review petitioner to see whether there is any ground to entertain these applications for review.

3. The sum and substance of the findings in the judgment sought to be reviewed is that Ext. P1 document executed by the Madathipathy of a Math in favour of the Kerala Kshethra Samrakshana Samithy, does not amount to one where there is a transfer of title to property; but is only a transaction by which the administration of the temples under the Math has been dealt with. It has been held in the judgment sought to be reviewed that by that document, there is no alienation of the trust property by way of exchange, sale or mortgage or even by way of lease, though the provisions of the scheme dated 02/08/1956 framed in OA No. 59/56 by the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Endowments (Administration) Department under Section 58 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, authorise hereditary trustee to grant lease in the name of the temple. The findings in the impugned judgment sought to be reviewed are rendered after considering the contents of Ext. P1 document and the relevant statutory provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Even if those findings are to be criticised as wrong or contrary to the provisions of law or are faulty in the matter of interpretation and construction of Ext. P1, those are not grounds, which would sustain these applications for review of the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed or any other reason to entertain these applications for review.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that under the guise of power of administration, different actions have been taken asserting title. Obviously, whatever words have been used in any notice of the Samithy, that would be of no consequence since the judgment sought to be reviewed clearly states the legal effect of the document, which is Ext. P1 in those writ petitions.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, these review petitions fail. Therefore, these CM Applications seeking condonation of delay also need not be entertained.

In the result, the CM Applications and the review petitions are dismissed.