Adiraja Arasarada Kinnyakka Ballah vs Badeltu Naranappayya and Others

Happell, J.—This civil revision petition arises out of an application u/s 78 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act for delivery of the

properties of a temple in South Kanara. The application for delivery u/s 78 was opposed by the petitioner who had been a hereditary trustee of the

temple, on the ground that the Hindu Religious Endowments Board had no jurisdiction to appoint trustees excluding him as the right of appointment

of trustees lay in the Jain Committee. The learned District Judge of South Kanara allowed the petition because, in his opinion, as the petitioner had

taken no steps to set aside the order of appointment of trustees made by the Board, that order had become final.

It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to raise the question in an application u/s 78 because the order of the Board

was without jurisdiction. I do not accept this argument. It is perfectly clear that the order of the Board had become final as the petitioner had not

taken the appropriate steps to set it aside at the time when the application for delivery was made. An application for delivery u/s 78 is in the nature

of an application for execution and it is not open to a person objecting to an application for delivery made under that section to question the order

of appointment of the trustee who has made the application. In my opinion, the decision of the District Judge is right. This petition is accordingly

dismissed with costs.