JUDGMENT :

Subba Rao, J.-This is an appeal by Special Leave against the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 592 of 1948 setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the. District Judge, Guntur, in A. S. No. 189 of 1947, which confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, in 0. S. No. 112 of 1945.

The question that arises in the appeal is whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge in exercise of its power under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code.

The case is a simple one : The plaintiff-appellant is the deity Sri Pattabhiramaswami of Narasaraopet, represented by Dharmakartha Nagasarapu Subbarayudu. The plaintiff's case is that property to the extent of 12 acres and 30 cents, bearing survey number 1032/B was dedicated to the deity in 1868 by the members of the Behara family, that the land has ever since been in the enjoyment of the deity, that at some time-not exactly known when-the then trustees entered into a convenient arrangement with the pipers, where under in lieu of wages for services rendered to the temple, the said property was to be their possession that defendants 6 to 23 are the representatives of the Bhajantries to whom the lands were given-of these defendants, defendants 6 to 14 are Hindus (Mangalis) and defendants 15 to 23'are Muslims (Dedekulas)-, that defendants 1 to 5 took two sale deeds from the other defendants-one sale deed was executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and the other in favour of defendants 4 and Sand that on the basis of the said sale deeds, the said alienees were setting up title of their own against the deity. On these allegations, the suit was filed for possession and for recovery of profits.

Defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed a written-statement denying the title of the deity and its possession of the suit property. They did not set up any specific title in defendants 6 to 23, but asserted that they were bonafide purchasers from defendants 6 to 23 who were in possession of the land.

On the aforesaid pleas, the following issues were framed I

(1) Has plaintiff title to the suit land by grant or prescription -

(2) Had plaintiff been in possession within 12 years prior to suit -

(3) To what future profits, if any, is plaintiff entitled -

(4) To what relief -

On issue 1, the learned Subordinate Judge, having considered the entire evidence, came to the following conclusion :

"There is abundant evidence in the case documentary, oral and circumstantial, to render it probable that the suit land was gifted or dedicated by the members of the Behara family to the plaintiff-deity and was in the possession and enjoyment of the Bhajantris

Mangalis and Dedukulas, only as remuneration for the service being rendered by them and as servants of the Plaintiff-deity and as land belonging to the deity and in the right of the deity and not in their own right."

On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence, the learned Subordinate, Judge held that the plaintiff had title to the suit land. On issue 2, he held that defendants 6 to 23 were in possession on behalf of the deity and therefore the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to the date of the suit, On issue 3, he found that the plaintiff was entitled to future mesne profits and according to that finding, he directed an enquiry to be held in respect of the future mesne profits under Order XX, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code. On issue 4, he found that the plaintiff was entitled to relief as prayed for.

On appeal the learned District Judge, after considering the evidence afresh came to the same conclusion as arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, the learned Judge observes :

"The plaintiff, although he failed to adduce satisfactory direct evidence of grant to the deity, has placed before Court ample material for coming to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to the deity and was not the private property of the Bhaja