Judgment :- This criminal revision case is against the order of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate of Sankari directing, under S. 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, the revision petitioner to deliver possession of the temple, its connected records, accounts and relevant papers to the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein claiming that he has been appointed as a fit person for the Arulmigu Mariamman and Karuppannasami Temples of Akkiampatty village by the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, filed the petition under S. 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The petitioner herein who was managing the temple for some time filed O.A. No. 61 of 1974 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras to declare him as the hereditary trustee of the temple; but his application was dismissed on 29-1-1977 and he was directed to hand over possession of the temple and records etc., to the respondent herein. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent as a fit person was also dismissed on 16-7-1977 by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras. After that the petitioner herein was directed by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem on 30-3-1977 to deliver possession of the said temple and its records and accounts to the respondent herein. Since he had failed to do so, the respondent came forward with the petition under S. 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The petitioner herein contending that he is the hereditary trustee of the Sri Mariamman and Karuppannaswamy Temples of Akkiampatty and that he had preferred a revision petition R.P. No. 81 of 1977 before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras resisted the aforesaid application under S. 101. The respondent produced the order Ex. P-1 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (A) Salem, appointing him as the fit person for the Arulmigu Mariamman and Karuppannaswamy temple of Akkiampatty. The learned Magistrate rejected the contention of the petitioner herein that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Salem appointing the respondent herein as a fit person is illegal and against principles of natural justice. The learned Magistrate rejected the contention of the petitioner herein that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Salem appointing the respondent herein as a fit person is illegal and against principles of natural justice. The learned Magistrate further held that the Magistrate's court as an executing court could only order delivery of possession of the religious institution to the fit person mentioned in the order passed by the H.R. & C.E., Department under S. 101 of the said Act and it cannot examine the validity or correctness of the order appointing the respondent as a fit person of the religious institution and it directed the petitioner to deliver possession of the temples, its connected records, accounts and relevant papers to the respondent. As against that order, the petitioner has come up by way of revision contending, first of all, he is the hereditary trustee and as such is entitled to possession of the temple and its records and properties etc. But then the petitioner's claim to be the hereditary trustee was negatived by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department and it appears that a suit has been filed by him. Therefore, he cannot now be heard to say that he is a hereditary trustee entitled to be in possession of the temple and its properties. 3. The next ground urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the order of the learned Magistrate is one passed without jurisdiction, since by reason of Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment and Special Provisions) Act, 1976 (Act No. 24 of 1976), S. 101 cannot be invoked. This contention is untenable. S. 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Act, No. 24 of 1976 does not amend or delete S. 101 of the Principal Act. It might be noted that the amending Act i.e., Tamil nadu Act No. 24 of 1976 is an Act to amend the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. It is an Act not only to amend the principal Act but also to make certain special provisions. S. 11 contains some of these special provisions. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 11 states :- "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, ......... (a) any non-hereditary trustee who ceases to be such non-hereditary trustee under sub-sec. It is an Act not only to amend the principal Act but also to make certain special provisions. S. 11 contains some of these special provisions. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 11 states :- "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act, ......... (a) any non-hereditary trustee who ceases to be such non-hereditary trustee under sub-sec. (1) shall hand over within a period of ten days from the date of commencement of this Act or within such further time as may be granted by the Commissioner, any records, accounts and properties of the religious institution which are in, or have come into, his possession or control, to the hereditary trustee, executive officer or fit person, as the case may be, referred to in sub-sec. (2); (b) if any such non-hereditary trustee fails to comply with the provisions of clause (a) he shall, on conviction by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both; (c) the Magistrate referred to in cl. (b), may, pending the conclusion of the trial, appoint a Receiver to take possession of the records, accounts and properties of the religious institution from such non-hereditary trustee and the remuneration if any, paid to the Receiver and other expenses incurred by him shall be paid out of the income of the religious institution concerned." * The contention of the learned counsel that because of these special provisions made in the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1976, S. 101 of the principal Act is in effect abrogated or is practically kept in abeyance during the tenure of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1976 is untenable. When a trustee, who includes also a fit person, is obstructed from obtaining possession of the temple, its properties and records etc., there are two courses open, one is to file an application under S. 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to get possession of the same and another is to lay a complaint before the Magistrate for an offence under S. 11(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1976. The fit person or trustee can resort to either of the two courses or to both the courses at the same time simultaneously and when a complaint is laid under S. 11(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1976, then the Magistrate can even appoint a Receiver to take possession of the records. It cannot at all be said that S. 11 is in substitution of S. 101 of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. I therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. This Revision is dismissed.