Provisions of the Act retrospective.

The question involved in all these cases is whether the District Court or the Sub-Court has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of suits or applications commenced under Madras Act (II of 1927) and pending before it after the passing of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act No.XIX of 1951) and they can therefore be disposed of in a common judgment.

C.M.A. No.486 of 1952:-This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Malabar returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court or tribunal. The appellant filed O.S. No.3 of 1949 in the District Court of South; Malabar for setting aside an order modifying a scheme settled under section 57 of Act II of 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act). Sub-section 7 of section 57 of the old Act conferred the right of suit on the trustee or any person having interest to institute a suit to set aside or modify a scheme within six months of the date of publication. Pending the suit, Act II of 1927 was repealed and re-enacted as the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the new Act). After the new Act came into force the District Judge felt that his jurisdiction to try and dispose cf suits or applications commenced under the old Act and pending before him at that time, had ceased and in that view directed the return of the plaint to the party for the purposes mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

The question that falls for determination is whether this view of the District Judge is correct, in other words, whether the new Act has taken away the right of the parties to continue the proceedings in the District Court. All suits, applications and other proceedings arising under the old Act were to be instituted in the District Court by virtue of the definition of “Court” in section 9 (3) of that Act. Section 9(3) defined “Court” as “the Court of the District Judge, if the math or temple is situated in a district”. The new Act effected a change in this respect. Section 6, clause (6) of the new Act says:

“‘Court’ means

(i) in relation to a math or temple situated in the Presidency town, the Madras City Civil Court;

(ii) in relation to a math or temple situated elsewhere, the Subordinate Judge’s Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the math or temple is situated, or if there is no such Court, the District Court having such jurisdiction.”

It is seen that the forum is altered, the City Civil Court having been substituted for the High Court so far as the city of Madras is concerned and the Sub-Court for the District Court in the mofussil wherever a Sub-Court exists. The other section which is material and which along with the definition section is regarded as having divested the District Court of its jurisdiction in this behalf is section 103 of the new Act:

“103. Notwithstanding the repeal of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said Act),

(a) all rules made, notifications or certificates issued, orders passed, decisions made, proceedings or action taken, schemes settled and things done by the Government, the Board or its President or by an Assistant Commissioner under the said Act, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, be deemed to have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall, subject to the provisions of clause (b) have effect accordingly;

(j) all suits, applications or proceedings taken by, or on behalf of, or against, the Board under the provisions of the said Act and pending at the commencement of this Act, may be continued by, or on behalf of, or against the Commissioner subject to the provisions of, and in so far as they are not inconsistent with, this Act;

Explanation: All suits and applications instituted under the said Act in the High Court in respect of religious institutions situated wi