Judgement

Appeal (No. 24 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 6, 1917) varying a decree of the District Judge of Chingleput.

The suit was instituted by the appellant and another under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the respondent, who was hereditary dharmakarta of a Hindu temple at Madavilagam in the neighbourhood of the City of Madras. The plaintiffs prayed for accounts, and for the defendants removal from his office, on the grounds that he and his ancestors had converted to their own use certain lands forming part of the endowment, that he had failed to keep proper accounts, and that he had mala fide altered the ceremonies of the temple. The respondent, by his written statement, claimed part of the lands referred to, and denied the other allegations.

The facts are fully stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

The District Judge, who tried the case, found that the title of the temple to the lands in question was not established, the records filed raising only a suspicion that the lands had originally belonged to the temple. But he found that the respondent had fabricated accounts for the purpose of the suit, and that his conduct as to alter