ings under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu "Religious Endowments Act of 1927, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : In 1926, the Manjunatha temple was exempted by a Government notification from the operation of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1923. On 28th June, 1945, the Board, which had been set up under Section 10 of the Act of 1927, informed the Heggade that it was examining the position afresh whether the exemption which had been granted in 1926 should be withdrawn. ·After due enquiry, the Board had moved the Government on 26th October, 1945, to cancel the exelIY'tion and it was cancelled by the Government on 10th December, 1945, under the provisions of Act 2 of 1927. On 7th February, 1946, the Heggade had made an application to the Government to review the. cancellation. Thereupon, the Government directed the Board to enquire into the whole question again. That enquiry before. the Board took place on 27th July, 1946. The Board gave its decision on 9th March, 1949, holding that the temple was covered by the provisions of the Act. It was in circumstances stated above that the Heggade had made an application before the District Judge after the coming into force on May 15, 1946, of the amending of Act 10 of 1946. The whole proceeding before the District Judge took place as a fresh and original trial in the course of which detailed oral and documentary evidence was produced in support of the respedive cases by the two sides to the dispute which were : the Heggade of the. Jain Dharamasthala, of which the temple was said to be a part, and the Board of Commissioners under the Act (probably substituted by the Commissioner after the repeal of the Act and its substitution by other enactments on the subjeclf). There was no argument before us on the question whether the proceedings were governed by the provisions of Jhe Act before its amendment in 1946 or its provisions as they stood after the amendment. But, it appears to me that the case proceeded on the footing that the amended Act, which had come into force before the Heggade had petitioned to the District Judge, governed the rights of the parties and the scope of the enquiry. The question whether the Institution known as Dharmasthala included the Manjunatha temple or whether Manjunatha temple could be said to have a separate legal entity of its own as an Institution seems to me to be covered by the provisions of Section 84 as they stood both before the amendment in 1946 and after it was amended in 1946. An appea.J to the High Court, however, lay"under the amended provisions only. There was no objection to the appeal to the High Court on the ground that the unamended provisions did not contain such a right. Here, I may, for the purpose of clarifying the exact scope of the enquiry out of which the case now before us by special leave has arisen, reproduce the provisions of Section 84 of the Act both before and after its amendment in 1946. . The unamended provisions of Section 84 read as follows : ·"84 (1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple js an· excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board.
