The court clarified the applicability of Sections 44 and 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1926 and held that Section 44 did not preclude the trustees from filing a suit in the appropriate civil court.

Leach, C.J.

1. By a will dated 6th June 1895 one Ponnammal directed that out of the income of certain immovable properties belonging to her the cost of performing religious Services in temples specified by her should be met. One of the temples is the Sri Kothandaramaswami Temple at Adambar in the Tanjore district, of which the appellants are the trustees. In 1941 they instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram against respondents 1 and 2, the successors in interest of one Subbaraya Ayyar who became possessed of the properties subject to the charges created by the testatrix. There were other defendants but it is not necessary to state why they were joined as parties. Respondents 1 and 2 strenuously defended the action. In the first place they denied that a valid charge had been created by the testatrix in favour of the Sri Kothandaramaswami temple and they averred that the suit was not maintainable by reason of the provisions of Sections 44 and 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1926. The District Munsif held that a valid charge had been created and under it respondents 1 and 2 were liable to pay to the trustees of the temple 15 kalams of paddy per annum. He considered, however, that the plea that the only remedy of the trustees was an application Under Section 44 of the Act must prevail, when the section was read together with Section 73, and accordingly he dismissed the suit. On appeal by the trustees the Subordinate Judge concurred in the opinion of the District Munsif that a valid charge had been created in favour of the Sri Kothandaramaswami temple. He did not agree with the District Munsif that Section 44 was a bar to the suit, but went on to hold that it was not maintainable by reason of Section 73, inasmuch as sanction for the institution of the suit had not been granted by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The Subordinate Judge agreed with the District Munsif that the charge in favour of the Sri Kothandaramaswami temple was in respect of an annual payment of 15 kalams. The trustees then appealed to this Court. This appeal was heard by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. who agreed with the District Munsif that Section 44, read in conjunction with Sub-section 3 of Section 73, prohibited the trustees from filing a suit and limited their remedy to an application Under Section 44. The learned Judge, gave, however, a certificate Under Clause 15, Letters Patent which has permitted the trustees to file this further appeal.

2. We are of the opinion that Section 73 of the Act has no application here. Sub-section (1) permits the board or any person having an interest and having obtained the consent of the board to institute a suit in the District Court to obtain a decree (a) appointing or removing the trustee of a math or excepted temple or of a specified endowment attached to a math or excepted temple, (b) vesting property in a trustee, (c) declaring what proportion of the endowed property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to a particular object of the endowment, (d) directing accounts and enquiries or (e) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. The words "granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require" cannot be read as extending the classes of suits contemplated by the section. The present unit does not come within any of the categories specified in Sub-section (i). Sub-section (2) admittedly is not in point. Sub-section (3) states" that Sections 92 and 93 and Rule 8 of Order 1 of Schedule 1, Civil P.C., shall have no application to a suit claiming relief in respect of the administration or management of a religious endowment and no suit in respect of such administration or management shall be instituted except as provided by the Act. This is not a suit for the administration or management of a religious endowment. It is a suit filed by the trustees to recover money due to the temple and secured by ft charge on immov