Legal origin of title in Archakas can be inferred.

Subba Rao, J.-This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali, decreeing the suit filed by the Executive Officer of Sri Somasekharaswami temple of Kotipalli, hamlet of Donepudi for possession of the suit properties. The origin of the temple is lost in antiquity. The suit properties, extending about 93 acres and 33 cents were granted in inam to the deity by the late Janganna Rao, the then Zamindar of Rachur in Fasli 1179 i.e., corresponding to 1770 A.D. The properties granted were only dry lands and they continued to be so till recently when they were converted into wet land. In or about 1860 it appears that the income from these lands was only Rs. 266-3-1. Though in the pleadings it was assumed that the zamindars of Rachur were the hereditary trustees of the suit temple it dos not appear that in the year 1860 they were the trustees of the suit temple, or, at any rate, that the hereditary trustees were in active management of the institution. The temple has no other property besides the suit scheduled properties and the entire suit properties have all along been in the possession of the archakas, the defendants and their predecessors for over a century and they were performing the services of Nilya Naivedya Deeparathana for the temple deity. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board appointed the plaintiff as the Executive Officer of the suit temple; and he filed the suit, as aforesaid, for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties and for mesne profits.

To the suit, the archakas and their alienees were made parties. The; defendants filed separate written statements raising various contentions. The following issues reflect the contentions of the parties:

1. Did the grant to the temple consist of both warams or only melwaram?

2. Are the suit lands archakatvam service inam?

3. Is the claim that the lands are service inam lands barred by res judicata by reason of the decree in A.S. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1939 on the file of the Sub-Gourt, Tenali?

4. Have the archakas prescribed for the office of the trustee?

5. Is the suit for possession time barred?

6. Has this Court no jurisdiction to try the suit?

7. Are the defendants liable to account for the profits?

8. What are the past mesne profits due to the plaintiff?

9. Did any of the defendants cut the babul trees; if so, what is the value of the trees cut?

10. Is the plaintiff disentitled to maintain the suit as a pauper?

11. Is the liability for mesne profits joint or several?

12. Are the tenants defendants liable for mesne profits?

Additional issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit lands within 12 years prior to the date of suit?

2. If not, whether the suit for ejectment is maintainable in law?

The learned Subordinate Judge held against the defendants on the main issues and decreed the suit as prayed for. Defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 10, 12 and 15 have preferred the above appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants raised two contentions before us (1) that in view of long possession and enjoyment of the plaint items by the archakas and their predecessors, the Court should infer a legal title in them by the application of the principle of lost grant and (2) that what was granted in inam to the deity was only of the melwaram interest in the suit items, and therefore the archakas are not liable to be evicted.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that as the archikas have been in possession and quiet enjoyment of the suit items for a long period of time extending over a century, doing Nilya Naivedya Deeparathana service, the Court should presume that some permanent arrangements must have been entered into between the predecessors-in-interest of the archakas and the trustees in and by which the permanent rights of enjoyment were conferred on the archakas subject to the condition that they should perform nitya naivedya deeparathana in the temple. It may be stated at once that this plea was not specificall