Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Pandrang Row, J.
Kachi Kadambi Krishnamachariar
Versus
T. Jagannadha Nayudu and Ors.
Decided On : 27.07.1934
Section 84(2) - Madras Hindu Religious-Endowments Act - The court held that an application under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act is not merely in the nature of an appeal or revision petition, but an application to which the ordinary procedure of the Court will apply, and on which the parties have the right to produce such evidence as they wish.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's application under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious-Endowments Act, was dismissed by the District Judge without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the District Judge and directed to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to adduce evidence in the application under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the precedent set by a Bench of the Court in Iswarananda Bharathi Swami v. H.R.E. Board Madras 1932 Mad 593.
Final Decision: The order of the District Judge dismissing the petition without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence was set aside, and the District Judge was directed to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence.
Pandrang Row, J.
1. The petitioners application under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious-Endowments Act, was dismissed by the District Judge without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence as the learned Judge was of opinion that the procedure contemplated by the Act places-the obligation upon him of adducing evidence at the time of the hearing of the dispute by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, and that the petitioner was not entitled; therefore to have the matter heard practically de novo. This very question was expressly decided in the contrary by a. Bench of this Court in Iswarananda Bharathi Swami v. H.R.E. Board Madras 1932 Mad 593, the head-note of which runs as follows:
An application under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, is not merely in the nature of an appeal or revision petition;...the application is, so far as the Court is concerned, an application to which the ordinary procedure of the Court will apply, and on which the parties have the right to produce such evidence as they wish.
2. The order of the District Judge dismissing the petition without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence therefore set aside, and the District Judge is directed to restore the petition to his file and dispose of it afresh after giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. The costs of this revision petition will be costs in the cause and should be provided for in the revised order of the District Judge.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
