The interpretation of the term 'emolument' in Section 57(e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 and its association with office or employment influenced the court's decision on the jurisdiction of the civil court.

S. Velu Pillai, J.

1. The plaintiff, an ooralan of a devaswom, sued defendants 1 to 4 the other ooralars, to enforce payment of a sum of Rs. 850-11-0, being the annuity payable to him for the years 1123 to 1125 M. E., under a karar for management Ext. A1, dated Thulam 1, 1035 M. E. Defendants 2 to 4 died pending the suit, and those who succeeded them as ooralars were impleaded in their place. The relevant provision in Ext. A1 is clause 7, which declared that an annuity of 720 edangazhies of paddy would be paid by the devaswom to the plaintiff's illom as in the past, in consideration of a prior karanavan of the illom having spent large sums of money, which were not to be refunded, to discharge the debts of the devaswom. The two courts have decreed the suit. Defendants 1 and 5, the latter being the successor of the third defendant, have preferred this second appeal and their only contention was, that by reason of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951, Act XIX of 1951, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. The provisions of the Act aforesaid which bear on this controversy are, Section 57 clause (e) and Section 93. Section 57, clause (e) reads,

"Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter provided, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power to inquire into and decide the following disputes and matters :

* * * * *

(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;"

and Section 93 provides that:

"No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration, or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act."

The suit was instituted in the year 1949 when the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, Act II of 1927, was in force. At first the Munsiff dismissed the suit, holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it by reason of Section 79 of that Act, but on appeal, the Subordinate Judge set aside the decree and remanded the case for fresh disposal by his judgment dated September 22,1953. It may be mentioned that Act XIX of 1951 came into force, on September 30, 1951. In the appeal before the Subordinate Judge it was argued on behalf of the plaintiff who was the appellant, that the provision in Section 57(e) of Act XIX of 1951, differed materially from the corresponding provision in Section 79 of Act II of 1927, and that the former is an enabling provision which does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Subordinate Judge was inclined to think that the argument had "good deal of force," but striking a different note, observed as follows :

"Anyway the present Act has been made retrospectively applicable by Section 103 thereof. Even otherwise any procesual law would be retrospective in its application and the provisions contained therein as on the date of the institution of a particular proceeding would be applicable. On the date, when this appeal was filed the new Act had come into force and it will certainly enable the appellant to take advantage of the provisions of the new Act and request the court to adjudicate more fully and elaborately on all matters in controversy between him and his opposite parties. In this view therefore the entire matter will have to be investigated and adjudicated upon by the learned District Munsiff."

After the case went back, the trial court held that the claim of the plaintiff was not for any emolument or perquisite within the meaning of Section 57(e), and that therefore the bar under Section 93 of Act XIX of 1951 was not attracted. This was also the view of the Subordinate Judge to whom the matter went up in appeal a second time.

3. It is unnecessary for