Hereditary nature of trustee ship how established.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the District Judge, Nellore, setting aside an order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board dismissing an application filed by the 1st respondent for a declaration that the appellants are not the hereditary trustees of the temples of Sri Agastheeswaraswami and Kari Krishna Perumal at Irakam village in Nellore district.

The facts relevant for the purpose of the inquiry may be shortly stated. In the year 1928, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board initiated proceedings for framing schemes for the better management of the abovementioned temples. Pending this inquiry the father of one of the appellants filed O. A. No. 301 of 1930, for declaring the abovementioned temples as ‘excepted ‘ones within the meaning of section 9 of Act II of 1927. After holding the necessary inquiry the Board came to the conclusion that the temples were “excepted temples” for the reason that the trustees thereof were hereditary. On the basis of this a scheme was framed wherein it was provided that the general management of the institutions should be carried on by a Vicharana mandali of 5 trustees representing these families specifically. There was litigation in respect of these institutions. It is not necessary to refer to it in detail ; suffice it to say that the Court proceeded on the assumption that the trusteeship of these institutions vested hereditarily in the appellants’ families. While matters stood thus, in or about 1948, the 1st respondent purporting to be person interested in the management of the institution invoked the jurisdiction of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under section 84(1)(b) of Act X of 1946, for the declaration mentioned above. The Board rejected this application summarily on the ground that there was a final adjudication in the matter and that therefore the petitioner was precluded from opening the question once more. Against this order the 1st respondent filed a petition before the District Court and the Court being of opinion that the matter should not have been rejected summarily but should have been gone into on the merits, set aside the order, giving liberty to the respondent to move the Board further. On another application filed by the respondent the Board came to the conclusion that as the matter was already decided, viz., as the families in question were hereditary trustees, it was not open to the petitioner to re-open the matter, and in that view the petition was again dismissed. It is that order that was the subject-matter of an inquiry before the District Court giving rise to this appeal.

The District Judge allowed the petition of the 1st respondent holding that the Board would have ordinarily to decide whether succession has been hereditary or whether such succession has been specifically provided for in an application under section 84(1) for a declaration that the temple is an ‘excepted’ one. As in this case the Board had not stated that the trusteeship had vested in the families of the present appellants hereditarily there was no final adjudication in the matter which precluded the ist respondent from raising the dispute once again. According to the learned District Judge the finding of the Board that the trusteeship of the institutions vested all along did not amount to a finding that it vested hereditarily in the families. In that view of the matter he went into the question whether the claim of the present appellants for the hereditary trusteeship has been established or not and arrived at the decision that the fact that the representatives of the appellants’ families held the office of trustees for about 60 years would not prove their right to be hereditary trustees.

In this appeal against the decision of the District Judge the above points are canvassed by Mr. Seshachalapathi, the learned counsel for the appellants and I think I must give effect to the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellants.

The reasoning of the District Judge that the findi