Court has no power to direct a scheme to be framed.

This appeal involves an interesting question relating to the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951. We are not concerned here with most of the particulars of evidence, but we may briefly note that one Rukmani Ammal endowed certain properties by a registered settlement deed, dated 19th March, 1906, for the celebration of a certain festival in the month of Thai in Sri Veeraraghavaswami Temple at Trivellore. She appointed six persons as executors, directed them to collect rents and to hand over the rents to two of the executors for the administration of the endowment. It is alleged that the properties have since come into the possession of the first defendant, who is misappropriating the rentals, and not administering the religious trust in a proper manner.

The matter came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Religious Endowments, Coimbatore, who initiated proceedings suo motu under section 58 (1) of Act XIX of 1951. But as that officer was not satisfied that a scheme should be settled for this religious trust, he dropped the proceedings. The matter again came up before the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, who also declined to interfere. It is sufficient to note that under section 61 (1) of Act XIX of 1951, there is a right of appeal provided to the Commissioner against any order by the Deputy Commissioner under the prior provisions, and that under section 62 (1) of the Act, any party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner may within the period of limitation specified, institute a suit in a civil Court to modify or cancel such order. The present suit has been instituted upon this basis, and the question is whether the suit is maintainable ; and whether the Civil Court can frame any scheme.

The learned Assistant City Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the Court had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme, mainly placing reliance upon the Bench decision of this Court in Pichu Ayyangar v. Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal1. In that decision, the question whether the civil Courts have jurisdiction to frame a scheme after the passing of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, was dealt with and answered in the negative. The following passages in the judgment of Leach, C.J., are of significance (at page 885):

The Board cannot be compelled to hold an inquiry. If it decides that an inquiry is not necessary, the applicants can carry the matter no further ; so much is conceded by the learned advocate for the appellant".

Again at page 886, the learned Chief Justice observes:

"I agree with Venkataramana Rao, J., that section 63 does not give authority to the Court to frame a scheme in the event of the Board refusing to do so. The only orders which the section refers to are: (1) An order settling a scheme ; (2) an order modifying a scheme, and (3) an order cancelling a scheme. I consider that the words ‘institute a suit in the Court to modify, or set aside such order’ are intended only to refer to an order settling a scheme or modifying or cancelling one ".

It is now argued before me, as was sought to be argued in the lower Court also, that the situation is quite different under Madras Act XIX of 1951, because a variety of orders is contemplated under section 57 and the subsequent sections, and because specific rights of appeal to the Commissioner are given under section 61 (1), and specific rights to prefer suits against an order passed by the Commissioner under section 62 (1). It is not in dispute that under section 62 (2) of the Act, an appeal to this Court is provided from the decree of the civil Court in the suit instituted under section 62 (1) of the Act.

But even so, the question is not whether a suit may not be technically competent against the order of the Commissioner declining to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which itself dropped the proceedings for the settlement of a scheme for this religious trust. The question is