PRAYAGA DOSS JEE VARU Vs. TIRUMALA ANANDAM TILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit which has given rise to this Appeal was brought for the purpose of having a scheme settled for the management of a Hindu Devastanam, or temple, situated in Tirupati and the protection of its funds.

(2.) It was not disputed in either of the Courts below that a schem was necessary. The questions in debate were confined to matters of detail.

(3.) The state of things which made a scheme necessary and the earlier history of the Institution are summed up in the following passage taken from the Judgment of the High Court:- The temple of Sri Venkutonvura in Tirumalai or Tirapati in the North Arcot District is a very ancient Hindu Temple to which worshippers resort from all parts of India and is in receipt of an annual income of between two and three lakhs of rupees. Prior to the establishment of the British Government, the management of the institution was directly under the ruler of the country for the time being. After the advent of the British, the management passed into the hands of the East India Com. pany and subsequent to the enactment of Regulation VII of 1817 of the Madras Code it was carried on under the control of the Board of Revenue through the Collector of the District. With reference to a despatch of the year 1841 from the Court of Directors ordering the immediate withdrawal from all interferemce on the part of the officers of Government with native temples and places of religious resort, the management of the temple was in 1843 made over to Seva Doss, the head of a Mutt called Hathiramji Mutt, situated in the town of Tirupaty at the bass of the hill on which the important shrine stands. In the sannad by which this transfer of management was effected, it was provided that Seva Doss successors in the Mutt should be his successors as Vicharanakartha of Manager of the temple. Seva Doss having died in 1964, Darma Doss succeeded him and on Darma Doss death in 1880, Bagavan Doss became Manager and continued so till 1890. From 1890 to 1894 Mahbir Doss was Manager. And from 1895 to 1900 Ramakisoro Doss, the Defendant in the two suits Nos. 31 of 1898 and 10 of 1899 on the file of the North Arcot District Court, held the management; and on his death, pending the litigation, the present Mahant, as the head of the Mutt is styled, succeeded to the office of the Manager and was brought on the record as the legal representative of Ramakisore. Now, when it 1843 the management was transferred to Seva Doss, it was, no doubt expected that the management by the Mahant would prove satisfactory, but the history of what took place subsequent to Seva Doss death is, to put it shortly, a record of waste and embezzlement.