Govinda Menon, J.-We agree with the learned Chief Justice that a civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a particular institution is a public temple or not when such a question arises incidental to other disputes in the case before the Court

But the more important question which was strongly pressed upon me by Mr. Atchuthan Nambiar, learned counsel, for the plaintiff-respondent was that the ordinary civil Court in its original jurisdiction had no power to adjudicate upon a dispute whether a particular temple is or is not a temple within the meaning of Madras Act II of 1927 and it is only the Board that could in the first instance adjudicate on the dispute. Even thereafter the aggrieved party could only file an application to the District Court. This, it was contended, followed from the provisions of section 84 of the Act.

The argument of Mr. A. Achuthan Nambiar for the respondent, if I understood him aright was that whenever there was any dispute between any parties in any connection as to whether a particular temple was or was not a temple as defined in the Act no Court had jurisdiction to decide that dispute and it was only the Board that was competent to decide it. Accordin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document