Rajamannar, C.J.-This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against the judgment of Somasundararn, J., in Criminal Revision Case No. 636 of 1953. The said case was filed under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Musiri, in Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 1953 on his file, which was an application by the trustees of a temple under section 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, for delivery of certain properties alleged to belong to the temple. The Magistrate dismissed the application. Somasundararn, J., set aside this order of the Magistrate and directed the trustees to be put in possession of the properties. This appeal is against that order.

On a preliminary objection taken to the maintainability of the appeal, we heard arguments only on that question. After listening at length to Mr. K.V. Venkatasubramania Ayyar, learned counsel for the appellants, we have come to the conclusion that the preliminary objection is well founded and that the appeal is hot competent.

Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on which the appellants found their right to appeal runs thus:

“15. Appeal from the Courts of Original Jurisdiction, to the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction.-And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Madras from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the Government of India Act or in the exercise of Criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to section 108 of the Government of India Act and that notwithstanding anything herein before provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court pursuant to section 108 of the Government of India Act made (on or after the 1st day of February, 1929) in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to Us, Our Heirs or Successors in Our or Their Privy Council as hereinafter provided”.

Undoubtedly, the order of the learned Judge, which is the subject-matter of the appeal is a “judgment” within the meaning of the clause. An appeal would, therefore, lie from it unless it is a judgment which falls within one or other of the categories of judgments which are expressly excepted in the clause. The following are such categories: (i) a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a lower Court; (ii) an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction; (iii) a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of section 107 of the Government of India Act (the provision in the Constitution corresponding to which is Article 227); and (iv) a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction. The order of Somasundaram, J., certainly does not fall within the first category. The question is whether it falls within any one or more of the other categories.

Mr. Venkatasubramania Aiyar contended that though the order was passed in a Criminal Revision Case filed under two sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document