GUNDA NARANNA NAIDU Vs. BHAIRI VENKATARAMAYYA BHUKTHA GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant brought this suit to set aside a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board with regard to the temple of Sri Hatakeswaraswami at Bhairi Singapuram. The scheme briefly was that the temple was to be administered by a body of trustees three in number - who were appointed for a period of three years. The plaintiff, stating that he was the hereditary trustee that he had! not been guilty of mismanagement and that the scheme framed; is unnecessary and ultra vires, brought the suit for setting aside the same. The Court held that the scheme was not ultra vires, that it was not inadvisable and upheld it with a small alteration that, though the plaintiff was not a hereditary trustee, he could not be turned out except by a suit at the end of three years. The finding was that the suit temple was an excepted temple under Section 5 (5)(a) of the Act of 1925 and for the purpose of this appeal we propose to confine ourselves to that Act.

(2.) This being an excepted temple the power of the Board to frame a Scheme is under Chapter VI; and Section 59(2) of that Chapter says: If in settling a scheme for the administration of the endowments connected with a math, the Board considers it necessary to associate any person with, or constitute any separate body for participating or assisting in the administration of such endowments, such person shall be a person having interest and such body shall consist exclusively of persons having interest in such math.

(3.) The learned District Judge has overlooked the important fact that it is only a math which is here spoken of and not an excepted temple ; and the question at issue is whether the Board has, in settling a scheme for an excepted temple, power to appoint such body as is contemplated under Section 59(2). The answer to this question will have to be looked for in the general scheme of the Act.