Sir john Beaumont.-This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated the 6th November, 1944, which revised a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated the 7th August, 1943.

The only matter which arises for determination in this appeal, and upon which special leave to appeal was granted, is whether the learned Judges of the High Court had any power to interfere in revision with the said order of the District Judge.

On the 1st July, 1907, one Narayana, the grandfather of the appellants, made a will by which he founded a temple and directed his male heirs to act as trustees of the temple. Narayana died in 1910, and in 1915 the family became divided. Thereafter each branch of the family managed the temple for one year in rotation.

In 1927, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1926 (Act II of 1927) (hereinafter with its amendments referred to as the "Act") was passed. The Act authorised the creation of a Hindu Religious Endowments Board and empowered it to take over control of temples dedicated to the use of the public. Section 63 of the Act empowered the Board to settle a scheme of administration for the endowments connected with a math or temple. Section 84 of the Act was in the following terms:

"(1) If any dispute raises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board.

(2) Any person affected by a decision under sub-section (1) may, within one year, apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decision; but, subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final."

The respondent Board was duly constituted under the Act, and, in or about the year 1930, demanded a contribution under the Act for the upkeep of the said temple constituted by the will of Narayana, from N.S. Narayana, another grandson of the testator, though representing a different branch from the appellants. The said N.S. Narayana objected to pay on the ground that the temple was a private one.

On the 15th January, 1931 the respondent, having decided to hold an inquiry under section 84 of the Act, served on N.S. Narayana informing him that his contention that the temple was a private one, would be heard by the Board on the 26th February, 1931, and that he should appear either in person or by counsel.

On the 4th August, 1931, the respondent having held an inquiry at which N.S. Narayana had been represented, declared the temple to be a public one which was to be classed as an excepted one under the Act. The contention of the appellants is that the said N.S. Narayana was not at the date of these proceedings a trustee of the temple, that the order was never served upon the trustees, and that the appellants are not bound thereby.

In 1933 the respondent asked Sadagopa, another grandson of the testator, to make a contribution out of the temple funds. The said Sadagopa objected to the levy on the ground that it was illegal. On the 8th September, 1933, the respondent ordered the cancellation of the contribution demanded from the temple funds.

From 1933 to 1937 the respondent does not appear to have made any further demand for contribution; but in 1938 the. respondent asked for a contribution from the appellants, who refused to pay on the ground that the temple was a private one. In answer to such refusal the respondent, on the 19th January, 1938, wrote a letter to the appellants in the following terms:-

"Sir,

Reference-Your letter dated 3rd January, 1938, regarding recovery of contribution, I have to state that your contention that the temple is ‘Private’ is untenable as the temple was already declared by the Board in its Order No.820, dated 4th August, 1931, to be an ‘Excepted Temple’ as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, and as that Order has not been set aside by the Court."

On the 15th April 1939, it appears that t