The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective application of the Devaswom Proclamation of 1121 and the principle of proper custodianship of Devaswom funds.

1. These appeals arise out of O.S. 66 of 1110 on the file of the court below. A.S. 291 is by the plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed and A.S. 300 is by the 2nd defendant, Travancore-Sirkar, now represented by the Travancore Devasworn Board, and is against certain findings recorded by the court below in its judgment and the order directing the appellant to bear their costs.

2. The suit has relation to the Sastha temple at Erachikulam situated in the Erachikulam Pakuthy. Survey Nos. 1115 and 1116 of that Pakuthy belong to that Devaswom. Three fallen trees from those survey numbers were auctioned by the 2nd defendant and purchased by the 1st defendant whose highest bid was Rs. 25/-. The plaintiffs allege that they are the trustees in management of the temple which belonged to the villagers of that locality. The act of the 2nd defendant in auctioning the above said trees was questioned as ultra vires and a declaration to that effect sought. A claim for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 25/- from the 1st and 2nd defendants was also made.

3. Both the defendants contested the suit. One of the main contentions related to its maintainability under the Travancore Devaswom Proclamation of 1097 which, after providing for the vesting of the properties belonging to and the administration of the affairs of the Devaswoms mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto, with the State enacted by Section 9 that:

"No suit shall lie in any Civil Court against Our Government:

[1] for anything done in relation to the Devaswoms mentioned in the Schedule and their properties before the commencement of this Proclamation; and

[2] for anything done or purporting to be done in pursuance of this Proclamation."

There were issues settled also in respect of the actual management of the Devaswoms in 1056 which, according to the plaintiffs, was in the hands of trustees appointed by the villagers; while according to the 2nd defendant it was with the Revenue Department. Pursuant to the said Proclamation, it was contended that the management came into the hands of the Devaswom Department. The court below found the suit not maintainable. Proclamation dated 25th Mithunam 1121 repealed the earlier Proclamation of 1097 and re-enacted its provisions regarding the management of Devaswoms. The temple in question was not in the schedule attached to the Proclamation of 1097. In the fresh schedule prepared after the Proclamation of 1121, the temple in question was included as temple No. 64 in the Thovala Taluk. The lower court found that the Proclamation of 1121 was retrospective in operation, that section 9 of that Proclamation applied to this case and that, therefore, though the suit was instituted in 1110 and the Proclamation was issued only in 1121, the suit could not be maintained.

4. Mr. Madhavan Nair, learned advocate for the first appellant contends that the view of the court below that the Proclamation of 1121 is retro-active is erroneous.

5. It appears to us unnecessary in this case to consider that aspect of the question or the merits of the controversy on the question of fact considered by the court below which is the subject-matter in A. S. 300. It appears to us that in view of sections 3 and 4 of the Proclamation of 1121 which provide that the proper custodians of the money sought to be recovered are the 2nd defendant Board who admit that they are holding the fund on behalf of the Devaswom as part of the Devaswom fund within the meaning of section 4 of the Proclamation. As the Devaswom in question is included in the schedule to that Proclamation, the fund belonging to it should be in the possession and management of the 2nd defendant as the proper manager under the Proclamation. Even if the plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to get a decree for recovery of the amount from the 2nd defendant is well-founded, they are not entitled to retain the sum for any time after recovery because they are not the proper custodians of the money, as the proper custodian