MUTTEVI SRINIVASACHARYULU Vs. DINAVAHI PRATYANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a gait brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with respect to a temple and the properties alleged to have been dedicated to the temple. Defendants NOS. 1 to 4 are the hereditary archakas of the temple. The District Judge. has passed a preliminary decree directing the removal of the defendants from the trusteeship and found that the properties in suit were, With the exception of two items, in fact the endowments of the plaint temple, which was a public one.

(2.) As regards the question whether the properties formed the endowment of the plaint temple or were personal inans of the defendants family, as contended by defendants, we have sanads as well as Inam Registers and title-deeds and takeeds in connection with these properties. Items Nos. 5 and 12 are the properties which are found by the Subordinate Judge to be service inans, that is to say, grants to the defendants ancestors for the performance of archaka service. As regards the other items the Subordinate Judge found that the grants were made to the idol, and that consequently the temple is entitled to the entire income.

(3.) The contention of the defendants with regard to those properties, as urged by Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar before us in the appeal, is that even if the grants were to the temple, any surplus that accrues after the performance of naivadyam and deeparadanai, mentioned in the sanad, was intended to be appropriated by the defendants. It is not necessary to refer to all the sanads, it would be sufficient to take one of them as a sample. Exhibit XI, dated 2nd June 1764, is styled: "Deed of gift of land executed by two persons in favour of Akilandakoti Brahmananda Nayaka Sri Swamivaru of Buchpeta." The dooument goes on to say: "We have dedicated 4 kathis of land: one kathi dry, one kathi wet, in all 2 kathis, in Yudumudi Gundooru Pargana and 2 kathis, one dry and one wet, in Karakatoor as maniam for conducting your daily naivadyam. and deeparadanai by archaka Muthuvei Vydya Padmanabhacharlu (the defendants ancector)." The concluding words of the grant are "so he shall cultivate the same every .year and use the produce thereof; he, "his sons and grandsons in succession shall enjoy the same for ever and render the daily naivadyam and, deeparadanai of Sri Swamivaru and live happily." The argument of the appellants is that the latter words indicate that, so long as the archakas parformed the daily naivalyam and despradanai, they Were entitled to use the sarplus income of the land for their own purpose. The Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention and we are unable to say that the construction which he placed on the sanads is wrong. The grant is expressly to the god installed in the temple, the purpose for which the grant is made is the performance of the daily naivadyam and deeparadanai, the ancestor of the defendants is described as arohaka, and it is in that capacity that he is to have possession and enjoyment of the land, which is given to the god as the donee. The archek is not the donee, but is only to carry out the objects of the gift. In arriving at this conclusion we are strengthened by the decision of the Inam Commission which appears from the Inam Registers, title deeds and takeeds issued in connection therewith. The Inam Register describes the land as desadayam granted for the expenses attending the performance of certain rites in the pagoda. The grantee is mentioned as Bachupet Sri Venkateswara-swami and the recommendation of the Commission is that the inam should be continued to the Venkataswaraswami Pagoda at Bachupet, The title deed is issued to the manager for the time being of the Sri Venkateswaraswami Pagoda, i.e., to the ancestor of the defendants.