Jaganmohan Reddy, J.- This petition is filed by Kumtamukkala Satyanarayana,. who is alleged to be the hereditary trustee of Sri Ramalingeswara Swami Varu temple at Malakapalli in West Godavari district, against the order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Kovvur, directing him to hand over documents, accounts and leases in his charge to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, D. Venkataratnam (1st respondent). The petitioner, who was the hereditary trustee of the temple, was being appointed regularly from 1948 onwards as trustee and in November, 1961 four additional trustees were appointed. Thereafter it is said that under section 40 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) the trustees elected the first respondent as the Chairman, who filed an application under section 87 of the Act before the Munsif-Magistrate, Kovvur, not only for delivery of the papers of the temple but also of movable properties belonging to it. Later the Chairman endorsed on the petition that he gave up the prayer for delivery of the movable properties and has confined his petition only to the delivery of records specified above. The petitioner contended that no meeting was held after due notice to him and as such the appointment is not valid and that consequently no order can be made. It was also contended that under section 87 of the Act withe at acertificate by the Commissioner, Religious Endowments Board, the application was not maintainable and that he being a trustee, no proceedings can be commenced against him by a co-trustee under section 87 of the Act. The Magistrate overruled these objections and directed the delivery of the papers. In this revision petition Mr. Y.G. Krishnamurthy for the petitioner has raised all the 5 above three contentions and has further submitted that even if the first respondent is elected under section 40 of the Act, he cannot be said to have been ‘ appointed ‘for the purpose of section 87 of the Act. In so far as the contention that the petition is not maintainable without a certificate from the Commissioner is concerned, it depends upon the interpretation of section 87 of the Act which is as follows: "Where a person has been appointed (a) as trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution,. In so far as the contention that the petition is not maintainable without a certificate from the Commissioner is concerned, it depends upon the interpretation of section 87 of the Act which is as follows: "Where a person has been appointed (a) as trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution,. or(b)of discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or (c) as Manager under section 56 or in any scheme framed by the Board before the commencement of this Act, and such person is resisted in, or prevented from, obtaining possession of the religious institution or of the records, accounts and properties thereof, by a trustee, office-holder or servant of the religious institution who has been dismissed or suspended from his office or is otherwise not entitled to be in possession or by any person claiming or deriving title from such trustee, office-holder or servant, not being a person claiming in good faith to be in possession on his own account or on account of some person not being such trustee, office-holder or servant, any Magistrate of the First Class in whose jurisdiction such institution or property is situated shall, on application by the person so appointed, and on the production of the order of appointment, and where the application is for possession of property, of a certificate by the Commissioner in the prescribed form setting forth hat the property in question belongs to the religious institution, direct delivery to the person appointed as aforesaid of the possession of such religious institution, or the records, accounts and properties thereof, as the case may be .........." It is apparent that the section contemplates the obtaining possession of (a) religious institution, (b) records and accounts, and (c) properties of the institution. In respect of these the Magistrate of the First Class in whose jurisdiction the religious institution, records and property are situated is empowered on application and on the production of the order of appointment and where the application is for possession of property on production of a certificate from the Commissioner in the prescribed form, to direct delivery of the religious institution, records or properties thereof as the case may be. The granting of a certificate by the Commissioner is contained specifically only to cases of delivery of property, while in respect of the possession of the religious institution or of the records and accounts the production of the order of appointment would be sufficient. A reading of the section incline us, without doubt, to this conclusion. This has also been held by our learned brother, Manohar Pershad, J. in an unreported judgment in Criminal Revision Case No. 382 of 1956. After referring to section 87 of the Act, he observed thus: ‘It is clear from the above provision that it is only when the application is for possession of the property, procurement of the certificate by the Commissioner in the prescribed form is a condition precedent for directing delivery of the property and not otherwise. There is nothing in the section to show that for delivery of records and accounts, such certificate is necessary. In view of the specific mention of records, accounts, temple and property, I cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel that the word ‘property’ includes ‘accounts, records and temples’. When the respondent by his subsequent petition has given up his other prayers and has confined his petition to records, documents, accounts and temples, I do not see how the production of a certificate is necessary." Even for the delivery of possession of a religious institution which can only be specified property, viz., the temple, it has been held that no certificate is necessary because the language of the section is such that it excludes from its purview the necessity of obtaining a certificate. In Balasubramania Naicker v. Doraiswami Naicker1, Somasundaram, J. took the same view. He also held that section 87 of the Act does not require the production of a certificate in the prescribed form in a case where trustees. newly appointed by the Area Committee seek only possession of the religious institution and not its properties. It is enough in such a case if the trustee produces before the Magistrate the order appointing him as trustee and the application is made by the trustee. The very fact that the first respondent has given up the prayer for delivery of movable properties shows that he wanted to getover the requirement of the production of a certificate. That however does not conclude the matter. The very fact that the first respondent has given up the prayer for delivery of movable properties shows that he wanted to getover the requirement of the production of a certificate. That however does not conclude the matter. But in the view we have taken it is not necessary as a condition precedent to an application for the delivery of possession of the temple or records or accounts to obtain and produce a certificate of the Commissioner under section 87 of the Act. Mr. Y.G. Krishnamurthy urged another novel ground in support of his submission byequating the delivery of possession of lease deeds to the delivery of property of which those lease deeds refer. This contention, in our view, is untenable because the possession of lease deeds in no case tantamounts to possession of property. If that were so the entire notion of possession and title being separate will have to undergo a radical change. A person might have perfect title to properly but he may not be able to get possession and property may be in the possession of others who have prescribed adverse title to it. The next question is whether a trustee can ask another trustee to make over possession of the records etc. This contention also is untenable because where there are more than one trustee it is practically impossible to envisage that all the trustees can be in possession of records. Such an assumption would lead 1o confusion and chaos and this is the reason why the Legislature has provided in section 40 of the Act that where a Board of Trustees is constituted under section 33 (1) the Board shall elect one of its members to be its Chairman and in the case of any other religious institution having more than one trustee, the trustees of such institution shall elect one of their members to be the Chairman and that a Chairman elected under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act further provides that documents relating to title of a religious institution, to properties and securities such as Government promissory notes, stock certificates, debentures, post office cash certificates, national savings certificates and fixed deposit receipts of banks obtained by the institution and mortgage deeds, bonds and promissory notes in favour of the institution shall where the institution has more than one trustee and no Executive Officer, be in the custody of the Chairman of the trustees and where the institution has more than one trustee and an Executive Officer, in the joint custody under double lock of the Chairman of the trustees and the Executive Officer and where the institution has only one trustee and an Executive Officer, in the joint custody under double lock of the trustee and the Executive Officer. These provisions resolve practical difficulties and prescribe a workable scheme for the administration of religious institutions. The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that a person elected under section 40 of the Act as Chairman cannot be deemed to be ‘ a person appointed ‘ within the meaning of section 87 of the Act In our view this contention also is equally without force. When section 87 uses the word ‘appointed.‘ it was not confining that word only to the appointment made by aparticular person. The election of a Chairman can also be deemed to be an appointment because the provisions of the Act itself have prescribed the procedure for appointment of a Chairman. Where a statute lays down that a person elected as Chairman shall exercise the functions under the Act he must be deemed to be a person appointed under the Act. That apart even section 87 of the Act contemplates a person elected as Chairman under section 40 of the Act. The relevant portion of section 87 is as follows: " Where a person has been appointed.............. (b) to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of this Act.............. The Chairman is a person appointed to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the Act. There is therefore no particular significance in the word ‘appointed’ which confines it only to the appointment by an authority and not to the appointment by election. The Chairman is a person appointed to discharge the functions of a trustee of a religious institution in accordance with the provisions of section 40 of the Act. There is therefore no particular significance in the word ‘appointed’ which confines it only to the appointment by an authority and not to the appointment by election. The only other question which remains is whether the first respondent is duly elected. The contention of the petitioner is that no notice was given to him and that the meeting of the trustees was not properly constituted and that consequently any election of a Chairman cannot be valid. This point though raised before the Magistrate has not been gone into or determined. This, in our view, is a jurisdictional fact which must be ascertained. If the production of the minutes showing that a person is elected as Chairman is challenged on the ground that it does not disclose a valid election, then that question will go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and will have to be determined by him. If it is a valid election, then no other question arises and he would have to pass necessary orders under section 87 of the Act. But if it is not a valid election the first respondent would not be entitled to any order under section 87 of the Act. The Magistrate has not enquired into this matter. This revision petition is allowed and the Magistrate is directed to enquire into the validity of the election of the first respondent as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He will restore the case to his file and dispose it of in the light of the observations made above and according to law. K.N.R. ----- Revision allowed; matter remitted.