VENKATESWARA AND CHANNAKESWARASWAMI TEMPLE UPPUTUR Vs. BENDAPUDI RADHAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, dismissing O. S. Nos. 56 and 57 of 1957.

(2.) The two suits were brought by Sri Venkateswara and Chennakeswara Swami Temples, Upputur, represented by its Executive Officer, for recovering Rs. 8255-74 and Rs. 33,829-5-0 respectively, being the amounts collected by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was one of the hereditary trustees of the above-mentioned institution. He as elected as managing trustee on 1-6-1947. In discharge of his duties as managing trustee, he collected the-aforesaid sums between 15-3-1951 and 30-9-1955, when he ceased to be the managing trustee, the first being the income from general endowments and the second from specific endowments. As he failed to account for the sums received by him in his capacity as managing trustee, these two actions were laid against him. His minor sons and his undivided brother were impleaded as defendants 2 to 5 and 6 respectively. Subsequently, the 6th defendant was given up and the 1st defendant remained ex parte. Defendants 2 to 5 opposed these suits. Their main defence was that, as they were not benefited by these amounts and as the 1st defendant might have used them for his own illegal purposes, they were not Cable to discharge the debt from out of the family properties.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suits as against defendants 2 to 5 holding that, as the 1st defendant was not authorised to keep cash in his hands and as the retention of the amounts in his hands was in contravention of the directions issued to him, the debt was tainted with immorality and consequently the minors were not liable for the debt in question. It, however, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as against the 1st defendant. The institutions aggrieved by these decrees carried two appeals to this Court. When the appeals came on for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Umamaheswaram and Ekbote JJ., they directed the matter to be placed before a Full Bench as they thought that these appeals raise an important and difficult Question of law in regard to the liability of the sons for the amounts misappropriated by their father and that there should be an authoritative decision of this Court. That is how these appeals are now before the Full Bench.