Judgment :- 1. The respondent or the counter-petitioner in this criminal revision petition, applied under S.87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which may be referred to as the Act, to the District Magistrate (Judicial), at Tellicherry on the strength of a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the Act, for delivery to him, of movable properties, which belong to a religious institution of which he is in charge as the manager, from the revision petitioner, who had been the previous manager and was suspended from service. The District Magistrate passed the order for the delivery of the properties to the respondent. This petition is to revise that order. 2. A preliminary objection was raised, that though the District Magistrate had acted in his judicial capacity and as a tribunal, in passing the order for the delivery of the properties, he really functioned as persona designata, and exercised only a special jurisdiction conferred on him by the Act. This objection was founded on the view expressed by Bhimasankaran, J. as single judge in Anjayya v. Venkateswaradas Bavaji,1958 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 263. In the later case, B. Krishna v. D. Chenchi Ready, A.I. R.1959 Andhra Pradesh 129 decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court, which consisted of P. Chandra Reddy, C. J. and Srinivasachari, J., a contrary view was taken, on a consideration of the provisions of the Act and of other relevant statutes, and on a review of the case law on the subject. The learned counsel for the respondent in the revision petition has not succeeded in making any point against the correctness of the view so taken. In my opinion, the reasoning in the judgment of the Divisional Court is conclusive against the preliminary objection, and I have no hesitation in over-ruling it. 3. On the merits, the point pressed before me on behalf of the revision-petitioner was, that the Magistrate had not considered the objection taken, that the revision petitioner is not in possession of all the movable properties, the delivery of which had been asked for, but that some of them are in the custody of a former "santhikaran" of the institution, against whom steps for their recovery are pending. In this context, the effect has to be considered, of the certificate which is prescribed by S.87 of the Act, and on the basis of which, an order for delivery of properties could be made. The first proviso to this Section has set out the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner appointed under the Act, in issuing the Certificate; it enjoins on him to give notice to the concerned office-holder or servant of the religious institution, and to consider his objections, if any, to the issue. The revision petitioner has a case, that he did not receive any notice, and that his objections to the issue of the Certificate were not heard by the Deputy Commissioner; but this does not arise in this petition, which is to revise the order of the Magistrate. For the purpose of this petition, it may be deemed, that the Certificate was issued in due compliance with the prescribed procedure. The second proviso to the Section which is material, reads as follows: "Provided also that for the purpose of proceedings under this section, the Certificate aforesaid shall be conclusive evidence that the properties to which it relates belong to the religious institution." Even for the "purpose of proceedings" under S.87 of the Act, the Certificate is conclusive only on the title of the religious institution to the movable properties, and not on anything concerning the custody or possession thereof. Accordingly, the third proviso to the Section, saves the right of suit for the aggrieved party, only for establishing his title to the properties. The above view of the effect of the Certificate, derives support from the Form of the Certificate prescribed by Rules under the Act, which makes no reference whatever to the possession or the custody of the properties. The revision petitioner cannot therefore be blamed for his default, if any, in not raising the irrelevant issue of possession in the proceedings for the Certificate. 4. The question still remains, whether before passing the order under S.87 of the Act, the Magistrate was bound to consider the objections of the revision petitioner. The proposition was not disputed, that in making the order under the Section, the Magistrate has to act judicially. 4. The question still remains, whether before passing the order under S.87 of the Act, the Magistrate was bound to consider the objections of the revision petitioner. The proposition was not disputed, that in making the order under the Section, the Magistrate has to act judicially. If so, in the absence of a set procedure prescribed by the Section, he has to act conformably with the principles of natural justice, and is bound to issue notice to the party who would be affected by the order. This has been so held, by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which consisted of Subba Rao, J., as he then was, and Ramaswami, J. in Dendaiah v. Venkatarama, A. I. R.1954 Madras 500. B. Krishna v. D. Chenchi Reddi referred to already, also held the same view. The purpose of issuing notice, is to enable the party notified, to raise his objections to an order being passed against him. In this case, the Magistrate did issue a notice to the revision petitioner, but he failed to consider his objections. For the purpose of S.87, I cannot conceive of a more pertinent objection, than that he is not in possession of the movable properties, the delivery of which is asked for. It must therefore follow, that the order for delivery passed without considering this objection cannot stand. The order is accordingly set aside, and the case sent back for disposal, in accordance with law, and in the light of the above observations. Allowed.