The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of possession of certain properties with past mesne profits. The properties in question admittedly belong to a Devastanam of which the Zamindar of Sivagiri is the trustee. On 21st November, 1940, the Court of Wards, by an order under section 18 of the Court of Wards Act, took over the superintendence of the Sivagiri estate, and on 28th January, 1941, a notification was issued to the effect that the superintendence of the trust properties had been taken over by the Court of Wards and the management entrusted to its manager. The properties now in suit were in 1933 held under a lease which was to terminate in two years’ time. On 14th January, 1938, the respondent submitted a petition (Ex. P-1) to the Zamindar in which he prayed for the grant of a lease in respect of the suit lands, described as “Arumugha Nayinar-koil Manibam lands” for seven years, from fasli 1350 to fasli 1356 at a rental of Rs. 580 per annum, the petitioner offering to pay the rent in advance. On the same date an order was issued (Ex. D-8) to the effect that the Zamindar had sanctioned the lease and had received the advance rent of Rs. 4,060 and directed the execution of a muchilika in accordance with the conditions of sale. As a matter of fact no auction of the lease appears to have been held though there is some reference to an auction in Ex. D-8. The muchilika was accordingly executed on 18th January, 1938. When the Court of Wards took over the estate an enquiry was held into this lease and it was brought to the notice of the Court that though the rent might be deemed to be reasonable having regard to the fact that it was paid in advance two years before the lease began to run, the lease was in excess of the powers of the trustee with reference to section 76(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was also ascertained that the advance rent collected by the Zamindar had been appropriated by him and not credited to the Devastanam. The Court of Wards was at first inclined not to incur the expense of the litigation which would result from the cancellation of the lease and it requested the Hindu Religious Endowments Board to sanction the lease. This the Board quite properly declined to do. Thereupon the Court directed its manager to give notice of the determination of the lease and to take steps to recover possession of the property. Hence the present suit.

All the issues of fact have been found in favour of the plaintiff and it has been found that the lease in question is an unlawful lease not justified by any benefit to the temple and in excess of the powers of the trustee. The learned Subordinate Judge has however dismissed the suit on the view that section 63 of the Court of Wards Act does not empower the Court of Wards to institute proceedings for the recovery of properties belonging to the Devastanam of which the ward is the trustee and which have been wrongfully alienated by the ward. Section 63 runs as follows:

“If a ward is the hereditary trustee or manager of a temple, mosque or other religious establishment, or endowment, the Court, notwithstanding, anything contained in section 22 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, may make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the discharge, during the wardship of the ward’s duties as trustee or manager, provided that for the direct and personal management of the religious affairs of any such institution, establishment or endowment the Court shall appoint suitable persons other than officers of Government and that the Court shall as far as possible restrict its superintendence to the preservation of the property belonging to the institution, establishment or endowment.”

Prima facie this section empowers the Court when the ward is a hereditary trustee of a temple to make such arrangements as it thinks fit for the discharge of the ward’s duties as trustee, and the proviso making special provisions for the discharge of his religious dutie