UPPINANGADI SRI SAHASRA LINGESHWARA DEVARA BHANDARAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADALTHE MOKTESSOR ARAI RAI Vs. THOLADARA NAGAPPA ALIAS RAMAKRISHNA SHANBHOGUE (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trustee of Sri Sahasralingeshwara temple filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. 288-1-6 under the following circumstances. Two brothers Narayana Bhat and Keshava Bhat executed a Karar (Ex. A.) in favour of the plaint institution on the 18 of July, 1899 undertaking to perform certain charities or viniyogams as they are called in the suit temple every year. Some properties of the brothers were charged with the performance of these viniyogams at a cost of Rs. 60 every year. These viniyogams were not performed during the years 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 by the defendants and thereupon the temple performed them and seeks to recover the sum of Rs. 288-1-6 and to enforce the charge over the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. The trial Court granted a decree but the appellate Court reversed it holding that Ex. A., was not valid either as a trust or a contract and that the plaint institution has no right to sue.

(2.) The plaintiff appeals and the only question that arises for decision is whether the plaintiff is entitled to perform the viniyogams and recover the amount from the plaint properties. Ex. A., is a registered agreement executed by two persons Narayana Bhat and Keshava Bhat in favour of the plaint institution. It recites that it was executed and delivered to the Bhandhara of Uprangady Sri Sahasralingeshwara Devaru in Kerikar village. Bharidara, it is agreed means a trustee. The material portion of it runs as follows: Our senior paternal uncle Verikapa Bhatta, the son of Hennal Puttanna Bhatta, residing at Ulamogra of Adethala village, Bandadi Magane, has this day conveyed to us through Moktyarname, the immovable property of the beriz of Rs. 2-8-0 and valued at about Rs. 600 out of the warg entered in the name of Hemal Subbayya, bearing Muli No. 12 of the said Hirebandi village and movable properties of the value of about Rs. 400 executed by him and executed Moktyarname. As mentioned therein, we have to maintain him properly in future and in accordance with this direction, we shall, for the welfare of our family, perform Brahmanasantarpane for Brahmins (feeding of Brahmins) at an expense of Rs. 60 on the day following Poornima Makha of every year, in the said temple, on the liability of the property lying within the undermentioned boundaries of the beriz of Rs. 15-8-5, warg of which is entered in the name of Kesa alias Thimmayya, bearing Muli No. 5 of Illantila village, Uprangadi Magane, Uprangadi Sub-District, South Kanara District. Further, we shall also give gangamrita (water) to the persons gathering on the occasion of three makha festivals every year in the said temple. We shall also give dakshina (present) according to (our) mite to the Brahmins who gather at the santarpane (feeding) at not less than one pie for each (Brahmin).

(3.) The properties mentioned in the schedule attached to this document are clearly charged with the performance of the feeding of Brahmins in the temple and of payment of a small sum as a present to the Brahmins who gather at that feeding ceremony at not less than one pie per Brahmin. The agreement is addressed to and is executed in favour of the plaint institution represented by its trustee. The lower appellate Court is clearly in error in holding that there was no consideration for the undertaking in this agreement to feed the Brahmins in the temple. The Subordinate Judge says: There is no legal connection established between the transaction of conveyance by the uncle to the nephews and the undertaking in Ex A. There is nothing to show that the uncle conveyed his property on the promise of Narayana Bhat and Keshava Bhat to perform the ceremonies.