Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether a deed of release Ex. B in and by which the husband of the fourth defendant one Pattabhirama Chetti relinquished his right to the management of the temple of Sri Anjaneyaswami described in Schedule A to the plaint in favour of his brother Sanjeevi Chetti is valid. The learned District Munsif was of the opinion that it was invalid; the learned Subordinate Judge took a different view. It is against this?decision that the present appeal has been preferred by the fourth defendant.

2. It is necessary to set out a few facts. The said Anjaneyaswami temple was founded by the plaintiffs father Singaperumal Chetti, the first defendants grandfather Thiruvengadam Chetti and the father of defendants 2 and 3 Muthukrishna Chetti. They were members of an undivided Hindu family. They also made certain endowments for the due administration of the said temple. On 15th June, 1887, they became divided and entered into an arrangement by which all the family property they were possessed of including the right to the management of the temple and its properties was divided among themselves in accordance with the decis