The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the court to settle a scheme for the management of a Hindu temple to safeguard its interests without impairing the authority of the mahant.

Judgement

Appeal from a decree of the High Court (February 10, 1905), modifying a decree of the District Court of South Arcot (November 7, 1901).

The litigation out of which this appeal arose was concerned with a large number of devastanams, or temples, situate at Tirupati. These temples are of very remote antiquity, of great importance, and held in great veneration by Hindus in all parts of India. The original constitution of the temples as a religious trust did not appear, and they are chiefly maintained by the voluntary offerings of pilgrims. On the assumption of British rule in the Carnatic, the Government took over their management. Later, on the passing of Madras Regulation VII. of 1817, they were managed by the Collector of the district, subject to the control and superintendence of the Board of Revenue. This state of things continued till the year 1841. On June 24 of that year the Governor of Madras, acting under the instructions of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, issued orders for the immediate withdrawal from all interference with native temples and places of religious resort. He stated that it was the intention of Government that the interference of all public officers, either with the internal arrangements of the religious institutions in question, or with the administration of their revenues and funds of every description, should be altogether withdrawn, and be vested in those individuals who, professing the same faith, might be thought best qualified to conduct that administration with fidelity and regularity. Such individuals, together with their subordinate officers, he added, were to be responsible to the Courts of justice for any breach of their duties and trusts assumed by them, and this withdrawal was not to be partial and uncertain, but final and complete. In pursuance of this order the Board of Revenue, on July 6, 1841, directed the Collectors of districts to report in detail the arrangements proposed for each institution in their districts.

Reports were furnished in regard to the temples in suit. The arrangement finally sanctioned was evidenced by a sanad granted on July 10, 1843. It appointed Sri Seva Doss Ji Varu, the mahant of the Mutt of Sri Hathiramji, to be the vicharanakartha (i.e. trustee and manager) of the said temples, and directed that he should perform or cause to be performed, all the religious services, festivals, and duties usually performed at the said temples; that he should receive all the offerings and save the surplus income, if any, maintain the hereditary subordinate officials in their offices, and keep proper accounts. Provision was also made for a perpetual succession to the office of vicharanakartha, by directing that the successor to the said Seva Doss in the said mutt should also succeed him as trustee.

Seva Doss was placed in possession of the said temples, and continued to act as trustee till his death in the year 1864. He was succeeded by Dharma Doss, and on his death in the year 1880 Bhagawan Doss succeeded him, and in January, 1890, appointed Mahabir Doss as his successor. Mahabir Doss died on October 11, 1894, and, after an interregnum, Ramkishore Doss, the original defendant to this suit, succeeded to the office on March 17, 1895. Pending judgment in the District Court he was murdered on September 15, 1900, and was succeeded by the appellant Prayaga Doss.

This suit was brought in 1898, with the consent of the Advocate-General of Madras, under s. 539 of the Civil Pro cedure Code, against Ramkishore Doss by the respondents, two subordinate officials attached to the temples. The plaint referred to the management of the temples by the Government, and the grant of the sanad dated July 10, 1843. It alleged that each of the trustees in succession had been guilty of malversation and misappropriation of the trust funds, and specifically charged the defendant with the improper use of his powers ; with failure to perform regular religious ceremonials; with neglec