The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed procedures laid down in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, especially for excepted temples, and ensuring that parties are dealt with in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Act.

Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.

1. One Garudachar who claims to be the hereditary trustee of the temple of Nettikanti Anjaneyaswami in Kasapuram, Gooty taluk, Anantapur District, is the appellant before us. Proceedings under Sections 18 and 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act were taken by this Endowments Board for his removal from trusteeship and for the settlement of a scheme for the administration of the temple. The appellant claimed that the temple was an excepted temple and that he was the hereditary trustee. The Commissioners held that there was no proof that the temple is an excepted one and they came to the conclusion that in the interests of the temple it was necessary that a scheme should be framed. They accordingly framed a scheme and appointed three other persons for the management of the temple. There was no place in the Board of management? for the present appellant. He then filed a suit as contemplated by Section 57 for setting aside the scheme and also a petition under Section 84(2) before the District Judge. He contended that the temple was an excepted temple, that he was the hereditary trustee thereof, that no case was made out for the settlement of a scheme, and that if a scheme was necessary a place must be given to him on the board of management. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit agreed with the appellants contention that the temple is an excepted one and that the appellant is the hereditary trustee, but he decided that no case was made out for disturbing the scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. He also came to the conclusion that it was left to the discretion of the Board to appoint the appellant as a trustee or not though his hereditary title to the trusteeship was established. The present appeal is against this decision of the Subordinate Judge.

2. The substantial contention urged before us by the appellant is that the order of the lower Court is vitiated by the fact that proceedings were taken by the Religious Endowments Board under Section 57 which lays down the procedure for settling schemes for non-excepted temples, whereas the temple in question being an excepted temple the procedure that should have been followed is the one prescribed in Sections 62 and 63 of the Act. We may mention here that it is not contended by the respondent that the finding of the learned Judge that the appellant is the hereditary trustee and that the temple is an excepted one is wrong. We would therefore proceed upon that assumption to consider this case.

3. There is a marked line of distinction adopted in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act with reference to the framing of schemes for excepted temples and for non-excepted temples. Chapter V deals with the procedure to be followed with reference to non-excepted temples and Chapter VI deals with excepted temples. It was pointed out in Zamorin of Calicut v. Krishnan Nambudripad I.L.R.(1930) Mad. 532 that "the policy of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, as seen from a comparison of Chapters IV, V and VI thereof, is to place maths and excepted temples, in normal conditions, under much less direct and detailed interference from the Religious Endowments Board in matters of internal management than ordinary temples." In Naranna Naidu v. Venkalaramayya (1934) 68 M.L.J. 722 : I.L.R. 1934 Mad. 862 it was observed by the learned Judges that the powers of the Board in respect of an "excepted temple" are clearly differentiated throughout the Act. This appears to be very clear when we peruse the provisions contained in Chapter V and those contained in Chapter VI. Under Section 57 of the Act, before framing a scheme for a non-excepted temple the Board has to be satisfied that in the interests of the proper administration of the endowments of the temple a scheme of administration should be settled, and when it is so satisfied, it may after consulting in the prescribed manner the trustee, the committee, if any, and the persons