The provisions of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act do not apply to suits between trustees of a temple and entire strangers who are claiming to be alienees of property wrongly obtained by them through the maladministration of a trustee.

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Waller. He had before him a suit claiming reliefs against seven defendants. The 1st defendant was one of the trustees of a: temple in the Chingle put District and the reliefs sought against him were his removal from trusteeship, an account and various other reliefs which are properly to be obtained under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was alleged that he had badly administered the trust and that, as a result of the maladministration, some property belonging to the temple and set out in the plaint got into the hands of the other defendants. The only defendant appealing here is the 2nd defendant and he is admittedly the alienee of the most valuable of all the trust property and that property is wholly situate in Madras. It is quite true that the suit has all the appearances of a suit under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The sanction of the Endowments Board has been obtained and the reliefs sought are, as already pointed out, reliefs which are properly obtainable under that Act. But something happened in the Lower Court. Mr. Narasimha Aiyar who was appearing for the plaintiffs did not press his claim against the 1st defendant. It should be remarked that the 1st, plaintiff is also a trustee of the temple and, whether it was so stated at the time or not, it is quite clear that he could not have pursued his remedy here against the 1st: defendant by reason of the fact that the suit in this High Court was barred by the provisions of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Accordingly, the suit against the 1st defendant was dismissed. That leaves only the alienees, Of these the alienees other than the 2nd defendant have been content with the position of affairs as decided in the Lower Court which was that, as regards the suit properties, the question whether their transfers can be set aside is to be inquired into. The 2nd defendant appeals. His contention here is that the claim against him is one within the provisions of Section 73(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and that this Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He puts forward this contention by reason of the wording of that Sub-section which is as follows:

Sections 92 and 93 and Rule 8 of Order 1 of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall have no application to any suit claiming any 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 this Act.

2. These words, it is argued, mean that any suit between any parties in which the question of the administration of a religious endowment comes into question immediately attracts the provisions of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It is argued that that section is wide enough to embrace any suit in which such a matter has to be considered. The appellant prays in aid Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Temple Committee, Tinnevelly Circle I.L.R (1931) 54 M. 1011 : 61 M.L.J. 815 a decision of a Bench of this Court consisting of Curgenven and Cornish, jj. There, what the Court had to consider was a claim of a purely personal nature. It was a suit to establish the plaintiffs personal right as hereditary trustee of a certain village temple; and it was held that the provisions. of Section 73 did not apply to any such claim. Then the Bench went on to state as follows:

The suit raises no issue as to the manner in which the trust property has been administered or should in future be administered.

3. That, it is argued, is a decision to the effect that in all cases where there arises a question involving the consideration of administration of trust property, the provisions of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act are at once attracted. In my view, that is going much beyond what was expre