DEERI NARASIMHACHARYULU Vs. CHALASANI SUBBAYYA (DIED), TUMMULAPALLI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit brought under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to a temple of Indupallu. The learned Subordinate Judge in a very careful and to my mind extremely accurate judgment has dealt with the contention of the appellant and I cannot do better than adopt the words in paragraph 21 of his judgment where he summarises his findings. On the main issue in the case, as to whether the defendants claim as Arehakas to proprietary right in the lands is well founded, he says this : "The inams in question were granted for the benefit and support of the temple and constitute absolute dedications to the god as trust property. They were not granted for the limited purpose of the performance of the archaka s duties alone and the contention of the defendants is unfounded and untenable that the income should be applied only to this purpose and no other. There is no usage proved or recognisable in law, as regards the application of the income to this limited purpose alone. The fact that the defendants have been misappropriating the income during the past few years, merely evidences a breach of trust and usage. There is no question of any prescriptive right in the defendants in the matter of the user of these trust properties. Their right is merely to be maintained out of the income (so long as they do or are allowed to do the archaka service) as it is a legitimate purpose connected with the maintenance of the temple as a place of worship." That is the finding of the learned Judge with which I agree. It is perfectly clear from Ex. A. the Inam register which is undoubtedly compiled from the statements made at the time by the predecessors-in-title of the defendants that the grant was to the god and no one else. That is confirmed by the admission of the defendants pleader in the court below referred to by the learned Judge in paragraph 12 of his judgment where he says " it is conceded that the lands are temple Inam and were granted to and belonged to the god. It is not alleged that the grant was to the Archakas or that the title-deed was given in the name of any member of the Archakas family." In Ex. XVII which was a cowle or lease granted in 1893 by the predecessor of the defendants he states in terms that the land he was leasing belongs to the deity. It is only very much later in 1909, when controversy about this matter had begun to arise that the defendants bethought themselves of putting forward their present claim. The whole matter can be put in a nutshell. Was this a gift to the god or was it a service Inam granted to the defendants, burdened with an obligation to perform the duties of Archakas and subject to that duty capable of beneficial enjoyment by them? I am clearly of opinion that it is the former, not the latter and that no ingenious form of words can be framed by the appellants which does not when examined resolve itself inevitably into the contention that this was after all an Inam to the defendants predecessor. On the main point there-fore I am of opinion that the appeal fails.

(2.) There remain one or two small matters to deal with. Under the 4th issue the question was raised as to whether a certain quantity of land amounting to 4 acres 72 cents and the house site being the second and third item respectively of the first schedule to the plaint were or were not part of the property belonging to the god, or whether they were the property, of the defendants. The learned Judge declined to determine that matter, leaving it to the trustee who might be appointed under the scheme to be presently mentioned to bring a suit to establish the right of the temple to this land if he should be so advised. Owing to the good sense of the counsel engaged in this Court, if I may say so, that lamentable result has been avoided. We are empowered by the vakils to give a finding on the issue and our finding is that it is not shown, that these lands were part of the lands granted to the god and that therefore they are the property of the defendants. They were undoubtedly purchased by the defendants and there is no proof of the allegation which was made at one time that the lands were purchased out of funds which they took from the temple properties. We hold therefore that these items are the defendants property.

(3.) There is one other matter and that is with regard to a certain house or houses in plaint schedule II which were and are occupied by the defendants and used by them to provide habitation for the archakas of the temple who performed their duties as archakas. We are going to add to the scheme a provision that so long as they perform duties of archakas properly, so long shall they be undisturbed in their occupation of these houses.