Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Quilon dismissing their suit 0. S. No. 49/51 on its file. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of the 1st plaintiff and first plaintiff is the widow of one Yohannan. 2. It transpired that Yohannan, a Christian was alleged to have trespassed upon a Hindu temple with the intention of insulting the Hindu religion and wounding the feelings of Hindu community and is also further alleged to have destroyed the idol and defiled the temple on 21-6-1121 M. E. It also appears that the police charge-sheeted Yohannan for offences under S.294, 296 and 459 of T. P. C. and a case was pending against him in the first class Magistrate's Court of Quilon as C. C. No. 92/1121. As the accused Yohannan was suspected to be a lunatic, he was examined by the Medical Officer, Quilon and he was declared to be insane and in consequence, the accused was sent to the Hospital at Oolampara for treatment. While undergoing treatment Yohannan died on 5-10-1122 and in view of this criminal proceedings against him were dropped. 3. It also appears that the Devaswom Department performed certain expiratory ceremonies because of the defilement alleged to have been caused by the said Yohannan and the expenses incurred is stated to be in the sum of about Rs. 364-10 Chs. 2 Cash. The Devaswom Commissioner moved the Revenue Department for recovery of this sum from the assets of the deceased Yohannan in the hands of the present plaintiffs under the Revenue Recovery Act and the plaint properties were sold in court auction on 3-3-1950 for Rs. 360. The properties were purchased by the 3rd defendant. The present suit, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by the widow and children of the said Yohannan for cancellation of the sale held under the Revenue Recovery Act. The plaintiffs denied any trespass or causing of damage to the idol by Yohannan and they stated that Yohannan was, in any event, insane and that the Devaswom Department did not take in all these matters into account. The plaintiffs denied any trespass or causing of damage to the idol by Yohannan and they stated that Yohannan was, in any event, insane and that the Devaswom Department did not take in all these matters into account. But the more serious grounds on which the plaintiffs attacked the entire proceedings was that the Devaswom Department did not give any opportunity to the plaintiffs to place their point of view before the decision to impose a liability on the properties in their possession was taken and they also challenged the said decision of the Devaswom Department as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to principles of natural Justice. In consequence, they also pleaded that the further proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act were also illegal and void. 4. Unfortunately, neither the first defendant the State, nor the 2nd defendant the Devaswom Board pleaded specifically to the main charge of arbitrariness and illegality levelled by the plaintiffs against the decision of the Devaswom Commissioner. The first defendant State filed a very bald written statement denying generally the plaint allegations. Though the second defendant, the Devaswom Board filed a fairly lengthy written statement, they did not also specifically meet the charge of arbitrariness and denial of opportunity to the plaintiffs to place their objections before the decision was taken by the Board. They only reiterated that the deceased Mathen Yohannan defiled the Ammankottu Temple contrary to law and destroyed the idol and as such, his properties are liable for the purification ceremonies conducted by him. 5. The learned District Judge who tried the suit held on the evidence placed before him that Yohannan trespassed into the temple and caused damage to the idol. The finding on this point was based mainly on the evidence of Dw. 2 the only person who figured as an eye-witness to the occurrence that took place 7 years ago. Though in 1122 the Doctor appears to have certified that Yohannan was insane and though admittedly, Yohannan was undergoing treatment in the Mental Hospital where he subsequently died as is seen from Ext. C. still the learned judge held that there was no reliable evidence in this case to show that Yohannan was insane at the time of occurrence. Though in 1122 the Doctor appears to have certified that Yohannan was insane and though admittedly, Yohannan was undergoing treatment in the Mental Hospital where he subsequently died as is seen from Ext. C. still the learned judge held that there was no reliable evidence in this case to show that Yohannan was insane at the time of occurrence. Further the learned judge relied upon R.6 and R.17 of the Rules framed by His Highness the Maharaja of Travancore on 24 111936 pursuant to the Temple Entry Proclamation promulgated on 12 111936, and he came to the conclusion that the order of the Devaswom Commissioner directing the collection of the purification amounts from the assets of Yohannan was valid and that the sale under the Revenue Recovery Act was also valid. Regarding the amount actually directed to be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act, the learned judge held that there could not be any dispute about the same as there was the order of the Devaswom Commissioner. Regarding the non-issue of notice by the Devaswom Commissioner to the parties prior to making an order against the plaintiffs, the learned judge has observed that the law does not contemplate the issue of any such notice to a party. In consequence, the learned judge also held that as the initiative has already come from the Devaswom Commissioner the proceedings by way of sale of the properties under the Revenue Recovery Act were perfectly valid and as such, the sale could not be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants Sri. T. K. Narayana Pillai, has attacked the judgment of the learned District Judge both on facts and also on the ground that the original proceedings of the Devaswom Department fixing a liability on the estate of Yohannan was arbitrary, illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice. He has contended that R.17 of the Proclamation dated 24th November 1986 issued by H. H. The Maharaja of Travancore does not give any indication as to who is the authority to decide about the alleged contravention by any person of any of the Rules and that it also does not prescribe the procedure to be followed before a party is made liable under that rule. He has also raised the major contention that the said Rule is void as being opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, 7. Mr. He has also raised the major contention that the said Rule is void as being opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, 7. Mr. Madhavan Nair, the learned counsel for the Devaswom Board has in turn, contended that there is no provision for giving an opportunity to the parties sought to be affected before any decision is taken by the Devaswom Department. His contention was that the moment there was a contravention of any provisions of the Rules, there is a liability on the part of such person to pay the cost of the necessary purificatory ceremonies at the approved rates. To a specific question by the Court Mr. Madhavan Nair very fairly stated that no notice was given to the plaintiffs by the Devaswom Department before the Department decided to collect the amounts from the assets of Yohannan in their hands. In view of the fact that admittedly no notice was issued to the plaintiffs by the Devaswom Department, it is unnecessary for us to consider the larger question as to the validity of R.17 in view of the provisions of the Constitution. This appeal could be disposed of on a shorter ground namely, that the order of the Devaswom Board directing a levy against the plaint properties is opposed to the principles of natural justice. 8. It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that no person shall be condemned unheard and it is also clear from the judicial decisions that in the absence of any specific rules, the decision of a Tribunal, Authority or Court must conform to the principles of natural justice. In this connection, it may be useful to refer to the following passage in the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in D. C. Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax W. Bengal (A. I. R.1955 Supreme Court 65 at p. 70) "In this case we are of opinion, that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next it did not give any opportunity to the Company to rebut the materials furnished to it by him". Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next it did not give any opportunity to the Company to rebut the materials furnished to it by him". These observations apply with great force to the present case." The Devaswom Department did not disclose to the plaintiffs the information they had received about the alleged defilement of the temple by Yohannan nor did it give any opportunity to the plaintiffs to rebut the claim of the Department. In passing such an order behind the back of the plaintiffs the Tribunal, in this case the Devaswom Commissioner, has violated the fundamental rules of natural justice and as such, in our opinion, the said order is illegal, void and of no effect. It follows that the proceedings taken under the Revenue Recovery Act in pursuance of a void order are equally illegal and unsustainable and not binding on the plaintiffs or their properties. We are also not satisfied about the correctness of the findings of the learned District judge on the question of the defilement of the temple by the deceased Ulahannan. As stated earlier, this finding is based on the evidence of a single person D. W. 2 who comes forward as an eyewitness to an incident that admittedly took place about 7 years ago. In the result, the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge are set aside and the suit decreed with costs throughout.