PARUCHURU SUDARSANA-CHARYULU LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED PARUCHURU VENKATACHARYULU Vs. KOLLIMARLA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a scheme which has been settled by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, with reference to the temple of Sree Venugopala swami, There are several items of property mentioned in the plaint. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is that the temple Owns only item No, 1 and that the income is about Rs. 360 per annum and that items Nos. 2 to 10 are the separate properties of the archakas. The archakas contention was that even item No. 1 was a gift to them burdened with the expenses of the temple. The Subordinate Judge found that it was a gift to the god and not to the archakas burdened with any trust. He framed a scheme appointing trustees. Against this decree the appellant, one of the archakas, raises certain contentions. His main grounds are that the suit is bad as the plaint, as at present filed, does not conform to the sanction given by the Collector; secondly, that there is no necessity for a scheme being framed; and thirdly, that the amount given for expenses is too small. A memorandum of objections has been filed by the respondents objecting to the judgment in so far as it declared that items Nos. 2 to 10 do not belong to the temple and also objecting to Rs. 25 a month for the archakas Service. So far as item No. 1 is concerned, it is clear from the inam statement and the register that the property was treated as the property of the god. There is no suggestion that it was a property given to the archakas burdened with any trust. We think that the Judge was right in holding that it was the property of the temple and not of the archakas.

(2.) The next contention is that the suit ought to have been dismissed as it did not conform to the sanction given. The sanction given is filed as Exs. B and B.1 and the petition for sanction is filed as Ex. IV. The petition states that the property item No. 1 which is 30 acres and 50 cents is in the possession of the archaka Paruchuru Sudarsanacharyulu, that the yearly income is Rs. 488, that Rs. 840 is paid to the Sircar every year towards cess; that the total balance of this amount is being saved by the archaka and he is using the same for purchasing sen lands, etc., on his private account and that he is not using the same for the temple purposes. The petition also refers to some nominal dharamakarthas of the temple, and states that they do not take any interest in the temple affairs. It also refers to the ruined nature of the temple premises and the prayer is that permission should be granted to them to file a scheme suit against the dharmakarthas nominally appointed for the temple and the archaka. The order, Ex. B, is that permission under Section 93, Civil Procedure Code, is granted to two individuals mentioned therein to file a scheme suit in respect of the inam lands attached to the temple of Sri Vengopalaswami Varu. Ex. B.1, is the supplemental order which says, "the petitioners are informed that all suit reliefs may be prayed for in their plaints and there is no necessity to include them in orders issued from this office."

(3.) This was in answer to the petition asking the Collector to specify the reliefs which should be asked for in the plaint. It is argued that Ex. B.1 is not a proper order, because it purports to be signed only by the sheristadar and not by the Collector. It is suggested that it was the sheristadar who made the order and not the Collector. If the order was really passed by the sheristadar there can be little doubt that such an order is invalid. Somchand Bhikhabhai v. Chhagan Lal Khubchand10 Ind. Cas. 803 : 35 B. 243 : 13 Bom. L.R. 207 will be a case in point. But Ex. B.1 purports to be an order passed by Mr. Rutherford. All that Ex. B1 shows is that it was signed by the sheristadar for Collector and above the signature of the sheristadar appear the words "by order." There is no evidence to show, that the sheristadar passed the order without reference to the Collector. Having regard to the fact that Ex. B.1 mentions the name of the Collector, Mr. Rutherford, as the person who passed the order it is impossible to hold that the sheristadar passed the order suo moto without reference to the Collector. Exhibit B.1 shows that it is signed by the sheristadar under the orders of the Collector. The Collector is not bound to sign every order that is issued to third persons and there is nothing wrong in the Collector delegating his power of signing the order to the sheristadar, and such an official act of the sheristadar is presumed to have been done properly until the contrary is proved. The order, as it stands, is perfectly valid.