Trustee can claim without any proper enquiry in a summary manse.

This revision petition is against the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur made on an application by the first respondent, under section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Amendment Act as amended by (Act X of 1946).

The 1st respondent herein claiming to be the trustee of the Sri Venugopalaswami and Anjaneyaswami temple situate at Valluru, filed the application under section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, to direct the petitioner and the other respondents to deliver possession of the petition schedule properties described in schedules A and B to him and respondents 20 and 21, the latter also being trustees appointed along with the 1st respondent petitioner in the lower Court.

The petitioner before me raised objections as to the tenability of the petition before the District Court on the ground that the case was not one covered by section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and that the Court had no jurisdiction to direct delivery of possession of the properties to the trustees. A further ground was also alleged, viz., that the certificates required under section 78 was also not produced and that what was produced at a later stage was not the proper certificate required by that section. The learned District Judge held that so far as the moveable properties were concerned, the certificate issued by the Board did not comprise them, and therefore, he did not direct possession of the schedule mentioned moveable properties. But in regard to the immoveable properties, which were claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the archakas, he directed, holding that the certificate was a valid certificate, that since the trustees have been appointed as such by the Board, they were entitled to recover possession and, therefore, the respondents were bound to deliver possession and allowed the petition. Against this order, this revision petition is preferred.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in this Court has raised various points as to the sustainability of the order of the learned District Judge. The first point that he has raised is that the provisions of section 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act do not warrant an enquiry by the learned District Judge into a case of this type, where the archakas claim to be in possession of the properties for over a long period covering more than a century and performing services to the temple deities, viz., Sri Venugopalaswami and Anjaneyaswami. His specific contention is that section 78 would apply only to properties, which are admitted to be trust properties and in regard to which there could be no bona fide dispute but that where the parties, who are in possession claim to be bona fide in possession on their own account, the Court will have no jurisdiction to enquire into the matter on a petition. The section contemplates a summary procedure and in summary procedure, where there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title to the properties claimed by the temple or by the trustees on behalf of the temple, the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision in Parankusam Rangacharyulu v. Pernamitta Venkatanarasimhayya1. On a careful consideration of the judgment of the Bench of this Court, consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Panchapagesa Sastry, JJ., in the said decision I am in agreement with the view that the policy underlying section 78 and the scheme itself, as may be gathered from the various clauses of that section, is only to give summary jurisdiction for making a direction in regard to delivery of possession of properties, which admittedly belong to the trustees or to the temple, and not properties, which are not admittedly trust properties and, in respect of which there happens to be a genuine and bona fide dispute as to the title and possession. The language of the section appears to be clear as has been pointed out by the learned Judges in the decision cited above, particularly