ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBBA RAO, J.:- Learned counsel appearing for the parties in the second appeal agree that this appeal may be posted before a Bench of two Judges. The only ground for the joint request is that the value of the property involved in the second appeal is more than Rs.50,000. If the appeal is heard by a single Judge and leave to prefer the Letters Patent appeal is refused they are afraid that they will not have an opportunity to take up the matter to the Supreme Court. The relevant rule of the Appellate Side Rules is rule (1) Chapter I, Part II which reads thus:

"The following matters may be heard and determined by one Judge; provided that the Judge before whom the matter is posted for hearing may at any time, adjourn it for hearing and determination by a Bench of two Judges:

The rule does not lay down the circumstances under which a single Judge is empowered to post the case before a Bench of two Judges. Therefore, a, single Judge may, in his discretion refuse to post a case before a Bench if in his opinion the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is not a relevant circumstance for posting it before a Bench. But it is represented to me that under the Standing Orders of the High Court a second appeal involving a subject-matter of the value of more than Rs.10,000 will have to be posted before a Bench of two Judges. Rule 183 of the Standing Orders says:

"All second appeals from decrees in which appeals may lie to the Privy Council by reason of the amount of value of the subject-matter (S.110. CPC) shall be posted before a Bench of two Judges. When on examining a second appeal the Appeal examiner has reason to believe that the second appeal is one of this kind, he will make the necessary note on the docket sheet fortifying himself, if necessary, by making a, reference to the appellant or his advocate and bring the second appeal to the notice of the Deputy Registrar and of the posting clerk."

The Standing Order is inconsistent with R.(1) of Chapter I Part II of the Appellate Side rules. When a rule of the Appellate Side rules which has statutory force says that all second appeals shall be posted before a single Judge, I cannot hold that the office can and shall post a second appeal under certain circumstances before a Bench. It is, therefore, necessary, if it is held that second appeals involving a subject-matter of the value of more than Rs.10,000 shall be posted before a Bench of two Judges, that the Appellate Side rule should suitably be amended. In this case, I direct this second appeal to be posted before a Beach of two Judges in exercise of my discretion under R.(1) of Chapter I of Part II of the Appellate side rules.

JUDGMENT OF THE DTVISION BENCH

2. BASHEER AHMED SAYEED, J.:- The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal, which is preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nellore, in A.S. No.215 of 1947 against O.S. No.201 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Kavali.

3. The plaintiff brought the suit against the respondent in the District Munsifs Court of Kavali for a declaration that the deed dated 12-12-1933, executed by Rahamatullah Saheb in favour of the respondent was null and void, for a declaration that the appellant was the validly appointed trustee of the "Mohideenia Mosque" in the village of Bamaramadugu, Kovur taluk, Nellore district, for a direction against the respondent to deliver to the appellant possession of all the properties included in the schedules to the plaint as well as all the account books and vouchers and receipts etc. and other effects and things belonging to the said Mosque, for a direction that the respondent should handover the management of the mosque to the appellant, for an injunction restraining the respondent or his agents or servants or employees from interfering with the appellant in the management of the mosque or of the properties thereof, for an account to be rendered by the respondent to the a