The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) and the applicability of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to suits for the removal of a trustee of a kattalai.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise a question of some importance regarding the construction of Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927).

2. Two suits were filed in the Lower Court, the plaintiffs being the members of the Board of Control of Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple, Tiruvarur. One of them was for the removal of the 1st defendant, described as the hereditary trustee of the kattalai known as Annadana Kattalai; the other related to the Abisheka Kattalai, in regard to which also the 1st defendant is the hereditary trustee. Various allegations of misconduct are made in these suits against the 1st defendant, and the suits were filed both under Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The consent of the Advocate-General under Section 92 was obtained, as also the consent of the Board under Section 73. A preliminary issue was raised in these suits, which runs thus:

Is the suit sustainable in law and has this Court jurisdiction to try it?

3. The learned District Judge of East Tanjore having decided that issue in the affirmative, the 1st defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petitions, questioning the correctness of the order.

4. Section 73 is in the following terms:

(1) The Board or Committee having jurisdiction over any math or temple or any person having interest and having obtained the consent of the Board may institute a suit in the Court to obtain a decree-

(a) appointing or removing the trustee of a math or excepted temple,

(b) vesting any property in a trustee,

(c) declaring what proportion of the endowed property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the endowment, or

(d) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) 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.

5. Section 73(1)(a) mentions only a "math or excepted temple "but does not refer to a kattalai. Under that section the petitioner contends that no suit can lie for the removal of a trustee of a kattalai. The contention is based upon the terms of Clause (2) of the provision quoted above. Under the same clause it is further contended that even under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure these suits do not lie. This view of the section is in my opinion well founded. Clause (2) consists of two parts, and I shall deal first with the earlier portion. That enacts, that Section 92 (I omit the words not material for the present purpose) shall have no application to any suit claiming any relief in respect of the administration or management of a religious endowment. The expression "religious endowment" is thus defined in Section 9(11):

Religious endowment or Endowment means all property belonging to, or given or endowed for the support of, maths or temples or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple.

6. That definition is wide enough to include the case of a kattalai. Now, the words of the first part of Section 73(2) construed as they stand, refer to "any suit claiming any relief," the terms are quite general and comprehensive and are not confined to those suits only claiming such reliefs as are mentioned in Clause (1). The argument of Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, the respondents learned Counsel, that the ambit of Clause (2) is no wider than that of Clause (1), does not commend itself to me. His contention involves that the words "any suit claiming any relief" are used in a restrictive sense,