Lord MacDermott.-This appeal is by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Madras, dated 6th September, 1944,1 affirming a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge at Nellore, dated 28th November, 1042, which varied a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge at Nellore, dated 30th August, 1940.

The present respondents are the representatives of the plaintiffs who brought the suit in which these judgments and decrees were pronounced, the appellant being the first-named and principal defendant therein.

Before referring to the nature and history of this litigation it will be convenient to indicate, in chronological order as far as possible, the events and circumstances out of which it arose.

Many years ago, the village of Jonnavada was granted as an endowment to two temple deities. In 1860 the Inam Commission confirmed the grant and the Government granted a title deed in the following year. In 1924 the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Nellore, acting under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, settled a scheme for the management of the affairs of the temple and appointed five managers or trustees. They were appointed for a term of five years which, it would seem, expired on or about 1st May, 1929. These trustees are hereinafter referred to as the scheme trustees. In 1926, during their period of office, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act was passed to provide for the better administration of certain religious endowments in the Province, including those pertaining to the temple in question. It will be necessary to refer later to certain parts of this enactment in more detail, but it may be stated now that it provided, inter alia for the constitution of a Board responsible for the due administration and general superintendence of all religious endowments within its area, and the establishment of local temple committees empowered to appoint temple trustees not exceeding three in number. The Act (hereinafter referred to as the "1926 Act") also provided that schemes settled under section 92 of the Code should be deemed to be settled under it, the 1926 Act, even if inconsistent therewith, and might be modified or cancelled in accordance with its provisions.

In 1928 the scheme trustees appear to have applied for directions to the Subordinate Judge. The nature of their difficulty is not specified in the record, but their term was running out and it would seem from the order made by the Subordinate Judge on 3rd January, 1929, that doubt had arisen as to how new trustees should be appointed and whether the local temple committee had power to make the appointment. The order referred to the fact that the scheme though deemed to be settled under the 1926 Act did not provide for appointments by the committee and drew attention to the power to modify schemes contained in the statute. It then continued:

" Pending such modification the three trustees (i.e., those of the five originally appointed who were still in office) will have to carry on the management of the temple."

On 13th May, 1930, the local committee for Nellore purported to appoint new trustees for the temple for a term of five years. There is nothing to show that the scheme had been modified by this time. But whether on this or on some other ground, the scheme trustees appear to have questioned the appointment made by the committee. For the next five years-till 1935-the scheme trustees continued to act and the committee trustees seem to have taken no active part in the administration of the temple’s estate and affairs. The evidence as to the actual management during this period is to be found in the testimony of Nellore Kothandarami Reddi, one of the scheme trustees and also one of the committee trustees, who was called as a witness for the plaintiffs. According to him the committee trustees.

" did not take charge as V. Rama Rao objected saying that the committee had not power to appoint. I do not know whether his objection was commun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document