Test of specific endowment to deity.

This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras varying the decree of the trial Court. The appellants were the defendants in the trial Court and the respondent was the plaintiff who was represented by the sole trustee appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board.

The suit was brought by the deity through the sole trustee for recovery of Rs. 3,480 towards the arrears of income of the property in trustee for the years 1942-44 and for a direction for future payment at the rate of 160 bags of paddy per year or its equivalent i.e., Rs. 1,680. The plaintiff alleged that the property in dispute constituted a specific endowment for Kalyanotsavam of the deity and that the defendants who were trustees had committed default in carrying out the purpose of the trust. The prayer was for a decree for the recovery of expenses of Kalyanotsavam and of the feeding charges. The defence raised was that the inam was a personal grant for driving the car of the deity on the festival days and that it was not a specific trust or an endowment for the benefit of the idol. In other words it was a grant of the inam burdened with service to the god. There were other pleas raised in regard to jurisdiction, res judicata and adverse possession. The trial Court held that the grant was a specific endowment for the Kalyanotsavam of the deity but the appellants were not bound to spend the whole income of the lands for the purpose. It decreed a sum of Rs. 200 per year as adequate provision for the performance of the service of Kalyanotsavam. The other pleas raised were decided against the appellants.

In the High Court the only point argued was regarding the nature of the grant and as in the opinion of that Court a general trustee could not call upon a specific trustee to pay any money except on the ground of expending that amount and there was no proof of this expenditure the prayer as contained in the plaint was not granted and the High Court was also of the opinion that as all the facts had been pleaded and there were no new facts to be alleged and the parties were alive to the real nature of the dispute and had even the issues framed, on that very question, it allowed the plaint to be amended by the addition of the prayer for a declaration that the properties in the schedule and the income thereof formed a specific endowment for the due performance of the services of Kalyanotsavam of the deity and feeding charges and other expenses incidental thereto and the appellants were therefore liable to pay the entire income. It was also of the opinion that all the available evidence had been adduced by both the parties that the prayer for declaration was only a formal relief which flowed from the allegations in the plaint. It neither involved a change of the cause of action nor did it require a fresh trial and therefore the petition for amendment was allowed by the addition of the prayer stated above.

In this appeal counsel for the appellant has raised three points: (1) that the suit was not maintainable ; (2) that the amendment should not have been allowed and (3) the grant was a personal grant to the appellants burdened with the provision for service and it was not a specific endowment. As far as the first question is concerned it has not been shown as to how the suit was not maintainable. The question of amendment, in our opinion, was rightly decided by the High Court. As held by that Court all the necessary allegations had been made in the plaint and the requisite pleas had been raised by the appellants ; an issue was framed on the question and the parties were fully cognizant of the points in controversy and the necessary evidence was led by the parties. In this view of the matter the High Court was right in allowing the amendment by the addition of a prayer in the prayer clause.

We then come to the question of the nature of grant which on a consideration of the documentary evidence and other evidence has been found by both t