PULIGADDA VENKATASUBBA RAO (DEAD) Vs. YELLAPRAGADA SIVARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal relates to a temple at Rajavole in the Guntur District which is an excepted temple within the meaning of that expression in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Plaintiff as a worshipper at that temple filed a suit under Section 73 of the Act to remove the defendant from his trusteeship, and appoint another trustee in his place. The suit was compromised, and as part, of the terms of the compromise a scheme was framed for the future administration of the temple. Plaintiff then applied under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, for a decree in the terms of the compromise, and the learned District Judge of Guatur, overruling defendant's objections to the application granted the decree. Defendant now appeals.

(2.) Of the grounds of objection only two need now be considered. The first was that defendant in consenting to the compromise, had been subjected to undue influence. No serious attempt has been made to substantiate this ground in appeal. I agree with the learned District Judge in rejecting it.

(3.) The second ground is that the Court had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme and therefore no jurisdiction to incorporate in its decree a scheme framed by the parties. It appears from para. 4 of the learned District Judge's order that before him the proposition that the Court is entitled to frame a scheme under Section 73 of the Act was not disputed. Before me this question is the main subject-matter of the appeal, and as its decision is one affecting the jurisdiction of the Court I cannot refuse to adjudicate upon it merely because of what appears to man unwise and ill-advised concession made in the District Court.