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

1. This petition at the instance of Krishnan Pandalai, J., has been referred to a Bench although our learned brother himself felt very little doubt that the order in this case was wrong.

2. The facts of the case are that under Section 78 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act the petitioner, being a trustee of a temple, appointed under the Act, obtained an order from the District Court against an obstructor directing him to deliver up the temple and its properties to the petitioner. The obstructor disobeyed that order. The petitioner then applied to the District Court to cause delivery of possession to be given to him by an officer of the Court. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable to the Religious Endowments Act which, in his opinion, is a self-contained Code and the order contemplated under Section 78 of the Act is not a decree which can be enforced under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 78 of the Act enables the Court on application by a person appointed as trustee by the C