B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE cases are coming up before us, on a reference made by the learned single Judge Justice J. Chelameswar, as per order dated 5th September 2001, on the question as to the scope and effect of Section 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act" ). The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a judgment debtor in a decree obtained by the respondents in O. S. 2 of 1975 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool, who claim to be the archakas of the petitioner-Devasthanam for recovery of certain amounts based upon hereditary rights, which have been enjoyed by them. The said suit was decreed on 9th December 1977 and filed inter alia contending that in view of Section 144 of the Act, the liability of the petitioner, if any, arising under the said decree got extinguished and therefore, the order of the Court below is wholly unsustainable. ( 2 ) AS noticed by the learned single Judge, the said plea was not raised before the executing Court. However, having regard to the question of law and the interpretation of the aforesaid provision, the same was permitted having noticed the decision of the learned single Judge in Veerasiva Sangham Vs. Commissioner of Endowments, 1994 2 ALT 602. which has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1026 of 1994, wherein almost in an identical circumstances, it was held that the said Act is only prospective in operation and cannot defeat the accrued rights. However, it was held that in the said decision, Section 144 of the Act has not come up directly for consideration and therefore, a valid pronouncement is required. Hence, the reference. However, it was held that in the said decision, Section 144 of the Act has not come up directly for consideration and therefore, a valid pronouncement is required. Hence, the reference. ( 3 ) FOR consideration of the said question, it is relevant to take note of Section 144 of the Act, which reads as follows:"section 144: Abolition of shares in Hundi and other rusums: Not withstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority or in any scheme, custom, usage or agreement, or in any manual prepared by any institution or in any Farmana or Sanad or any deed or order of the Government to the contrary governing any charitable or religious institution or endowment, all shares which are payable or being paid or given or allowed at the commencement of this Act to any trustee, Dharmakartha, Mutawalli, any office holder or servant including an Archaka or Mirasidar and share or shares, in the Kanukas offered either in kind or in cash or both by the devotees either in Hundi, Plate or otherwise, or any rusum in the Archana or Seva tickets and tickets for tonsuring or any rusums collected from the person for the performance of marriage or Upanayanam and the like, all offering made in the premises or the Temple or at such places as may be specified by the Trustee, all prasadams ard Panyarams offe"ed wither by the Temple or devotee, and such other kinds of offerings, all shares in the lands of the institution or endowment allotted or allowed to be in possession and enjoyment of any archaka, officer holder or servant towards remuneration or otherwise for rendering service and for defraying the paditharam and other expenses connected with the service or management of the temple, shall stand abolished with effect on and from the commencement of this Act". ( 4 ) ON a bare reading of the above provision itself, states that the shares in Hundi and other rusums enjoyed by any archaka or office holder stand abolished with effect on and from the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, it should not detain us from the fact that the said abolition is only from the date of the Act and not otherwise. ( 5 ) IN Veerasiva Sangham Vs. Therefore, it should not detain us from the fact that the said abolition is only from the date of the Act and not otherwise. ( 5 ) IN Veerasiva Sangham Vs. Commissioner of endowments (1 supra), a learned single Judge of this Court while considering the provisions of Section 1 (4) and 34 read with g. O. Ms. NO. 504, Revenue (Endowment) Department, dated 25-5-1987 held that the Act is prospective with effect from 28-5-1987, i. e. , the date of notification and it has no retrospective operation. Therefore, rights accrued prior to issuance of notification are not affected and the decree obtained by the respondents-Archakas for payment of Commission out of temple collection for the period prior to commencement of the act not demolished by Section 34 of the Act and ultimately upheld the validity of the decree obtained. The said decision was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 8. 4. 1996 in Writ Appeal No. 1026 of 1994 holding that by reading the provision under Section 34 (1) (a), it is evident that all the rights which were enjoyed by Archakas and Mirasidars were abolished from the date of commencement of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that it will have retrospective effect to take away the vested rights which were enjoyed by the archakas since a long time and which were upheld by the Civil court and confirmed by this Court. ( 6 ) FOR convenience sake, the said provision under Section 34 (1) (a) is extracted hereunder:"section 34 (1) (a): Notwithstanding anything in any compromise or agreement entered into or scheme framed or sanad or grant made or judgment, decree or order passed by any Court, Tribunal or other authorities prior to the commencement of this Act and in force on such commencement, all rights, whether, hereditary, contractual or otherwise of a person holding any office of the Peddajeeyangar, Chinajeeyangar, a Marasidar or an archaka or Pujari or any other office or service or post by whatever name it is called in any religious institution or endowment shall on the commencement of this Act abolished. (b) Any usage or practice relating to the succession to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) shall be void; and (c) All rights and emoluments of any nature in cash or kind or both accrued to and appertaining to any office or service or post mentioned in clause (a) and subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall on such commencement stand extinguished". ( 7 ) FROM the above, as reiterated by this Court, it transpires that all rights whether hereditary, contractual or otherwise of a person holding any office of the Peddajeeyangar, chinnajeeyangar, a Marasidar or an Archaka or Pujari or any other office or service or post by whatever name it is called in any religious institution or endowment, shall on the commencement of this Act stand abolished. Thus, this Court has taken a view that the said provision of the Act will not have any retrospective effect. ( 8 ) SIMILAR is the effect of Section 144 of the Act, which again thus, there cannot be any two opinions in regard to the applicability of the said provision, which cannot have any retrospective operation nor would affect any such rights anterior to the date of its commencement. No doubt, the said provision, namely Section 144, has not directly came up for consideration in the aforesaid decision of this Court. But, however, on a reading of both the provisions, which virtually run on the same lines, it gets effect only from the date of the Act and not before. ( 9 ) DURING the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that on the earlier occasion, in a revision filed at the instance of the very same petitioner herein, in c. R. P. No. 2913 of 1997 as against an interlocutory order in e. A. No. 6 of 1996 dated 25. 4. 1997, in the very same execution laid by the respondent/decree holder, similar such plea under section 144 of the Act was negatived holding that:"there cannot be any dispute about the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the hereditary rights of archakas are abolished, but the abolition of those rights is from the date of commencement of the Act as the Act is nor given retrospective effect. Therefore, the Archakas are not entitled for any hereditary rights with effect from the date of commencement of the Act and not from an earlier date. The decree in O. S. No. 2 of 1975 is a decree declaring that the archakas are entitled for a share in the ticket collection from 1964. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that in view of Act 30 of 87 they are not entitled to share cannot be sustained. The respondents are entitled to a share in the collection as per the decree in O. S. 2/75 till the commencement of Act 30 of 1987". ( 10 ) IN view of such categorical rejection, it is not open for the petitioners to re-agitate the very same issue once again in this revision when the same has not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge while referring the matter to this Bench. In the aforesaid circumstances, we hold and answer the reference to the effect that the said provision under Section 144 of the Act has no retrospective operation. The reference is answered accordingly.