Hereditary rights of archakas and their entitlement to share in temple offerings.

Varadachariar, J.

1. These appeals arise out of disputes between certain archakas of the Tiruchanur Temple and Sri Mahant of Tirupathi as the Vicharanakartha of the said temple. To follow the evidence and appreciate the contentions in the case a preliminary narrative may be helpful.

2. The Tiruchanur Temple has long been associated not merely in the popular mind but also in respect of its management with the temples at Tirumalai (on the hills), and Tirupathi (at the foot), and all the three and a number of other temples in the neighbourhood have generally come to be known as the Tirumalai Tirupathi, etc., Devasthanams. When the Government divested themselves of the management of Hindu Temples, this group was handed over to the then Mahant of the Hatiramji Mutt at Tirupathi, and they have ever since continued under a common management.

3. In the Tiruchanur temple the principal shrine is that of the Goddess Sri Padmavathi(referred to as Thayar or Amrnavaru). But in the same temple there has long been also c a shrine of Sri Krishna. The Archaka miras in the Padmavathi shrine is admittedly hereditary, and in the course of the proceedings in the Court below, it was practically admitted that the Archakas of the Padmavathi shrine were hereditarily entitled to the Archaka miras in the Sri Krishna Shrine as well. In 1905 a separate building was consecrated within the temple precincts as a shrine of Sri Sundararajaswami, and to this building the utsava idol of Sri Sundararaja, which therefore had been kept and worshipped in the Padmavathi shrine itself, was removed, and a new Moola Vigraha was installed in this new building. One of the questions argued in this case relates to the claim of the Archakas of the Padmavathi shrine to miras or hereditary right in respect of the Sundararajaswami Temple.

4. As to the Archakaship in the Padmavathi temple, it would appear from Ex. II that in 1818 three persons, namely Vyasa Narasimhachari and his father Seshiah and another Ramaswami, son of Rangachari, were miras Archakas of that shrine with shares in the proportion of 3, 1 and 2. It is however clear that from and after 1827, the branch of the first two held a half share and the branch of Ramaswami was entitled to the other half share. Ramaswami would appear to have died somewhere about 1841, leaving, a widow Narasamma, and she applied by Ex. XI to be registered as mirasidar and to be permitted to discharge her duties through her brother-in-law Venkatacharlu. This was apparently permitted. Troubles seem to have arisen shortly afterwards on account of disputes between these two, and Narasimhachar of the other branch seems to have been asked to do duty for her turn as well. But matters seem to have settled down by the date of Ex. A, (1849), and one Cuddapah Ramacharlu was arranged by her to attend to her duties. About 1852 she brought one Devallapalli Srinivasachari on the scene, and this led to new troubles which however need not now be referred to in detail. Later on, she adopted one Krishnamacharlu who enjoyed this half share in the archaka miras till his death in 1911.

5. On 2nd September, 1911 (the day of his death) Krishnamacharlu executed a will, (Ex. O.), whereby he authorised his wife to adopt, bequeathed a moiety of his half share to the son to be adopted, and bequeathed the other half to his sisters son Narasimhacharlu. The documents marked P series in the case show that, in due course, the title of Narasimhacharlu under the will was recognised by the Mahant. In May, 1917, the widow adopted one Govindacharlu, and the documentary evidence shows that this adoption was also brought to the knowledge of and recognised by the Mahant. Things went on smoothly enough between the parties till 1921. Two other matters must be adverted to, to understand the origin of the subsequent disputes.

6. The Tiruchanur temple seems to have no permanent endowment of any value, and the expenses of the services and worship in the temple have to be met from offe