Horwill, J.

1. In an application by the present trustees of Sri Ramalayam appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 76 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for possession of certain godowns from* the petitioners, who claimed to be the private owners of the temple as well as of the godowns which were the subject of this application, it was held by the lower Court that Sri Ramalayam is a public temple and that the property belongs to the temple and not to the petitioners. In this revision petition the only question is whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to decide the question whether the property belongs to the petitioners or to the temple.

2. The petitioners rely on a decision of Patanjali Sastri, J., reported in (1940) 52 L.W. 7 I have read a copy of the judgment provided by Mr. Appa Rao and I find that Patanjali Sastri, J., held, in a case where possession was resisted by a tenant claiming to be an occupancy tenant that the Court had no jurisdiction to hand over property unless it admittedly belonged to the temple. He relied on an obiter dictum of Ramesam, J., in Subrahmaniam v. Subbayi (1933) M.W.N. 934. In the latter case the District Judge had