Section 43 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is mandatory and not directory. Failure to comply with its requirements renders the compromise decrees null and void.

ISMAIL, J. :- Defendants 7 to 11 in O. S. No. 39 of 1965 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga are the appellants herein, for the purpose of under, standing the scope of the appeal, it is necessary to set out certain facts. The suit relates to one Sri Pallar Kaliamman temple, Gandhipuram St. Virudhunagar and the suit properties are claimed to belong to the said temple. Admittedly the suit properties were in the possession of defendants 1 to 4 prior to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department taking action under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The authorities functioning under the Act felt that the affairs of the temple were mismanaged and so three trustees were appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, and they were defendants 5 and 6 and one Sinnu, who died subsequently. Defendants 1 to 4 refused to hand over possession of the temple and its properties to the said trustees, defendants 5 and 6, and preferred a revision petition to the Commissioner. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and the same was dismissed on 13-12-1964. Thereafter defendants 5 and 6 filed O. A. No. 143 of 1954 for issue of a certificate to take possession of the temple and its properties and such a certificate was issued and on the basis of the said certificate, proceedings were initiated before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, for taking possession. Under those circumstances, two persons by name Marudhan and Sangili acting for themselves and as representatives of the families of Pallas living in Kottjupatti, now known as Gandhipuram Street, Virudhamagar, filed O. S. 16 of 1957 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the suit properties belonged to the suit temple and issuing a certificate to that effect Defendants 1 to 4 also filed O. A. 38 of 1955 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Tanjore, for a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple and not a public temple. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 18-4-1957, held that the suit temple is a public religious institution. Defendants 1 to 4 then preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, and that appeal was dismissed on 11-2-1958. Thereafter, the aforesaid Marudha and Sangili and another Alagu Kudumban for themselves and as representatives of the said family of Pallas filed another suit, O. S. 16 of 1958, on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, to set aside the order of the Commissioner, holding that the suit temple is a public institution. In both the suits, defendants 5 and 6 filed written statements contesting the case of the plaintiffs therein. However, both the suits were compromised on 22-2-1960 and under the terms of the compromise, practically all the suit properties were conceded to belong to Pallar Podhu and not to the temple as such. The only concession that was made in favour of the temple in the compromise was that a sum of Rs. 750/- out of the income from the properties was to be spent for the benefit and the festivals of the temple. In addition to that, the plaintiffs in the respective suits and defendants, adjusted Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,957/- respectively, said to be costs incurred by them in the suits and other proceedings from out of the income of the properties, which was deposited into the court by the Receiver. Decrees were passed in both the suits on the basis of the above compromise. the compromise decrees also provided that the suit properties should be banded over to A. O. Mariappan, the first defendant in the present suit and N. Arasappan, the fourth defendant in the present suit, on behalf of the said Pallar Podhu, Yet another suit, n