GOLLA LAKSHMIAH NAIDU Vs. GOLLA KRISHNASWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are Golla Mirasiholders of the Sri Kothandaramaswami Temple and that by a registered agreement, dated August 22, 19G6, between them and the defendant they were entitled to take yearly turns in holding office. They also sued to recover possession of the key of the temple and to fill this office for the year beginning wi July, 1, 1931.

(2.) The suit was filed in November 1931 and did not come up for hearing till March 1933, apparently for no fault of the plaintiffs. By that time the year for which they were entitled to possession had elapsed. The defendant, urged that they must be, therefore, non-suited as a mere prayer for declaration without possession could not be granted. The plaintiffs asked to amend their plaint by claiming the relief they were entitled to, viz., to get possession during alternate years. This amendment was allowed by the Court and against the order allowing it the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) The argument of the petitioner is that the amendment enlarges the scope of the suit. It may be noted here that it was contended for the plaintiffs even at the time of the amendment that the suit was maintainable even as it stood without amendment; and the lower Court wisely, I think, said it was unnecessary to decide this point. The plaint as it was orginally framed runs: The plaintiffs, therefore, pray for a declaration that they are the Golla Mirasiholders of Sri Kothandnramaswami Temple, that in pursuance of the agreement dated "August 22, 1906, they are entitled to enjoy the said office according to turns from July 1, 1931, to June 30, 1932, and that after establishing their right in a Court of Law they are entitled to have the defendant removed from the Udigam Mirasi office and to get possession of the keys through the process of the Court.