ORDER.- This petition is filed to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing delivery of possession of Sri Kamakshiamman Periaveettukkaran Temple at Vadakupalayam in Sivagiri village, Erode Taluk, Coimbatore District, to the respondents who were appointed trustees of the said temple. The petitioners claim that the temple is a denominational institution and that the lower Court was in error in directing delivery of possession to the respondents. The respondents were appointed trustees of the temple by the Area Committee of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Salem. The petitioners filed R.P. No. 18 of 1962 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, under section 21 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959 for setting aside the appointment of the trustees. The petition was dismissed by the Commissioner on 19th March, 1962. The respondents filed Crl.M.P. No. 31 of 1962 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, under section 101 of Madras Act XXII of 1959 for delivery of the temple to them and by an order dated 26th March, 1962, delivery was ordered. Meanwhile the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 513 of 1962 to quash the order of the Commissioner in R.P. No. 18 of 1962 declining to interfere with the appointment of the respondents as trustees of the temple by the Area Committee. In the Writ Petition, the High Court ordered stay of delivery of the temple by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 9th April, 1962. The petitioner filed a suit O.S. No. 936 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Erode, for a declaration that the temple was a denominational one under Article 26 of the Constitution. On 21st January, 1963, Writ Petition No. 513 of 1962 was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner’s contentions in the suit that had already been filed by them. The plaint in O.S. No. 936 of 1962 was returned by the District Munsif’ Court. Erode, for presentation to the proper Court, as it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaint was re-presented in the Sub-Court, Erode and the suit was numbered as O.S. No. 71 of 1963, and is pending. The respondents filed M.P. No. 371 of 1963 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, for delivery of the temple and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate overruling the objections of the petitioners ordered delivery of the temple to the respondents and the temple was delivered to the respondents. The respondents filed M.P. No. 371 of 1963 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, for delivery of the temple and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate overruling the objections of the petitioners ordered delivery of the temple to the respondents and the temple was delivered to the respondents. The present revision petition is filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Erode, directing delivery of the temple to the respondents. It is not disputed that the respondents are the lawfully appointed trustees of the temple by the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Salem. The order was also confirmed by the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras. In Criminal M.P. No. 31 of 1962 filed by the respondents for delivery of possession of the temple the petitioners contended that they were entitled to possession as office-bearers of Kamakshiamman Alaya Paripalana Committee Sabha. It was further contended that the members of the community elected the President of the Kamakshiamman Alaya Paripalana Committee and he was looking after the affairs of the temple, and the Area Committee was in error in appointing the respondents as trustees without notifying the temple or calling for applications for appointment of the trustees. In O.S. No. 936 of 1962 filed by the petitioners the contention was that the temple was a denominational one and not within the purview of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Mr R. Sundaralingam, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no power under section 101 of Act XXII of 1959 to direct delivery of possession of the temple to the respondents, as the temple is a denominational one and the petitioners are not trustees, who have been dismissed or suspended from their office or otherwise not entitled to be in possession of the temple. Section 101 of the Act empowers a person appointed as a trustee or executive officer of a religious institution, when resisted in obtaining possession of the religious institution by a trustee of the religious institution, who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or otherwise not entitled to be in possession, to apply to the Magistrate of the First Glass and on production of the order of appointment obtain delivery of possession of the religious institution. This, section does not apply to cases where a person claims in good faith to be in possession of the temple on his own account or on account of some person, who is not a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution. The order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under this section shall not bar the institution of a suit by an aggrieved person for establishing his title to the suit property. As pointed out by Subba Rao, J., (as he then was) in Prattipati Dandaiah v. Venkatarama Dikshitulu1, the underlying purpose of the section is apparent and it is conceived and enacted in public interests to enable a trustee of a temple to recover its properties expeditiously from recalcitrant ex-trustees or other servants of the temple. While the section enables the temple to recover its properties from the ex-office-holders it gives the ex-office-holders adequate protection against arbitrary eviction by enabling them to resort to a Court of law. The section was enacted to prevent the trustees and other recalcitrant servants of the temple from resorting to obstructive tactics and involving the temple in prolonged litigation. In the public interest this provision enables the temple to obtain possession of its properties while giving a right to the aggrieved party to have resort to the civil Court to establish his rights. There can be no doubt that the section enables a trustee or an executive officer of a religious institution to obtain possession of the religious institution from a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution, who has been dismissed or suspended from his office. Under the Act a trustee is appointed by the authorities for a term of office. If the trustee is dismissed or suspended or ceases to hold the office by efflux of time or by incurring any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act, there can be no doubt about the applicability of section 101 of the Act. Mr. Sundaralingam, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that under the section only a trustee, who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession can be dispossessed, and in this case the petitioners are neither dismissed nor suspended trustees and it cannot be said that they are persons, who come within the clause “otherwise not entitled to be in possession”. The learned Counsel submitted that this clause is applicable only to trustees dismissed or suspended or in like manner become not entitled to be in possession and is not applicable to cases where the trustees continue to administer the temple in their own right. The section exempts any person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account. This clause would remove from the purview of the section persons, who claim the temple in their own right and not as trustees of the temple. Sub-clause (22) of section 6 of the Act defined ‘trustee ‘as follows: “ ‘Trustee ‘means any person or body by whatever designation known in whom or in which the administration of a religious institution is vested, and includes any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee.” Therefore, any person in whom the administration is vested or any person who is liable as a trustee will be a trustee for the purposes of the Act. Any person, who claims to be entitled to administration of the temple and accountable as a trustee will not be a person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account. Therefore, the petitioners will be trustees under section 101 of the Act. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, is applicable to all Hindu public religious institutions and when trustees are appointed under the provisions of the Act, they are entitled to take charge of the temple and its properties and manage the temple during their term. When persons are appointed trustees to non-hereditary temples, by virtue of their appointment, they are entitled to possession of the temple, and a person, who is already in possession of the temple as a trustee,is no more entitled to be in possession. He will be a trustee "otherwise not entitled to be in possession" under section 101 of the Act. Any other construction of the words "otherwise not entitled to be in possession will not be in keeping with the spirit of the section. The section was specifically enacted for the purpose of saving religious institutions from prolonged litigation in obtaining possession of the temple and its properties from recalcitrant trustees, while reserving the right of the aggrieved parties to resort to a Court of law to establish their lights. The section was specifically enacted for the purpose of saving religious institutions from prolonged litigation in obtaining possession of the temple and its properties from recalcitrant trustees, while reserving the right of the aggrieved parties to resort to a Court of law to establish their lights. The intention of the enactment will be defeated by confining the words "otherwise not entitled to be in possession" as meaning only trustees dismissed, suspended or whose term is terminated by efflux of time or disqualification, etc. A liberal interpretation of the words is in conformity with the intention of the enactment. I am therefore unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that section 101 of the Act is inapplicable in this case. The petitioners have already filed a suit and they are at liberty to establish their rights in the civil Court. If the institution is a denominational one and not within the purview of the Act, it is for the petitioners to obtain proper relief from the civil Court. In the result this petition is dismissed. V.K. ------------- Petition dismissed.