(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated March 6, 1917, which varied a decree of the District Judge of Chingleput, dated December 11, 1914.
(2.) The suit was instituted by the persent appellant and another under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 92. The prayer of the plaint was for an account of the respondent's management of a temple in the district of Chingleput since his assumption of office, and thai he "be made accountable for all losses occasioned to this temple by his breaches of trust, for his removal from office, and for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the Devastanam and its properties." Incidentally, the judgment for accounts made in the suit has raised a question of complexity and importance as to the ownership of lands of considerable extent and value. The issue upon that topic is the principal one raised in this appeal. It is whether those lands belonged to the temple or are the private property of the respondent, who, in point of fact, is its Dharmakarta or hereditary trustee.
(3.) The grounds for the removal of the respondent from the position of Dharmakarta have been added to by the conduct of the respondent in the course of the suit, and now include not only misfeasance and breach of trust, but the proved falsification of the temple accounts.