The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Hindu Religious Endowments Act applies to public religious institutions, and the Board has the jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the proper administration of the temple, even if there is no mismanagement.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. Appeal No. 306 of 1936.- This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of South Arcot modifying a scheme framed by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board in regard to the temple of Sri Sabanayakar alias Nataraja of Chidambaram. This action was filed as a representative suit on behalf of the Dikshitars (who are said to be over 200 in number) who claim to be trustees - archakas and poojaris of the said temple. Before the learned District Judge various questions as to jurisdiction were raised. It is unnecessary for us to mention all of them. It is sufficient for us to say that one of the main questions raised in this behalf was in regard to the non-applicability of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the consequent want of jurisdiction in the Board to frame a scheme. The contention of the Dikshitars is that the suit temple is only a private temple and not a public religious institution within the meaning of the Act and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme. Another contention in regard to jurisdiction was that even assuming that the Board had jurisdiction, the provisions of Sections 62 and 63 of the Act were not complied with, in that the Board could frame a scheme on its own initiative only if there was mismanagement and not merely because it would be proper to frame a scheme in the interests of efficient administration of the temple. The learned District Judge disallowed all the contentions on behalf of the plaintiffs and upheld the scheme of the Board but only modifying it in some particulars with a view to satisfy some of the objections raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Rajah Aiyar on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants confined his objections mainly to the scheme, though incidentally he made mention of the two main objections which we have outlined in regard to the jurisdiction of the Board to frame the scheme. So far as the question of jurisdiction based on the non-applicability of the Act is concerned, the learned Counsel, we think, wisely refrained from pressing it because it cannot be seriously doubted that the suit temple is a public institution within the meaning of the Act and not a private temple as contended for. We agree that some of the grounds on which the learned District Judge purported to hold against the plaintiffs may not be valid, but having regard to the character of the temple it seems to us that it would be too much to contend that this is a private temple. So early as 1885 when the question was raised in a suit by the Dikshitars, Muthuswami Aiyar and Shephard, JJ., in their judgment dated 17th March, 1890, in A.S. Nos. 108 and 1 59 of 1888 observed that it was not denied that the institution was being used as a place of public worship from time immemorial and that there was no particle of evidence in support of the assertion that this ancient temple of Sri Nataraja was the private property of the Dikshitars. Even now it is not denied that this temple is held to be very sacred by all the Saivites in this Presidency and is resorted to as a place of public worship. The other contention of Mr. Rajah Aiyar with reference to the Boards jurisdiction to frame a scheme under Section 63 is that the Board could frame a scheme when it takes action suo motu only if it finds mismanagement. There is a finding in this case that there was mismanagement, but it seems to us that the Board can always take action if it has reason to believe that a temple is being mismanaged. In this case there was ample material on which it could take action on its own initiative. It accordingly instituted an enquiry and then proceeded to frame a scheme. Once the Board takes action suo motu, we think even though it may ultimately find that there was no mismanagement, nevertheless it can frame a scheme if it is necessary for the proper administration of the temple that a scheme should be framed. Section 62 imposes a restriction to taking action suo motu by