The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, specifically regarding the hereditary right of appointment of a trustee and the management of temple lands.

Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.

1. The appellants were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They claim that the first appellant is the Board, hereditary trustee of the Sri Radhakanta Mahaprabho temple of Bhavanipur. By an order dated 16th October, 1928, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments framed a scheme for the management of this temple under the provisions of Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927. In spite of contentions by the appellants to the contrary the Board refused to recognise the temple as being an excepted temple within the meaning of Section 9(5) of the Act and rejected the claim set up by the appellants that their family possessed the hereditary right of appointing a member as trustee of the temple. On this basis the Board decided that there should be a council of three trustees and placed the management of the temple in the hands of this council. No member of the appellants family was, however, appointed to this council of trustees. The appellants were not satisfied with the Boards decision and instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, as they had the right to do under Section 57(3) of the Act. The learned District Judge agreed with the findings of the Board of Commissioners and adopted the Boards scheme. He held that the hereditary right claimed had not been established; that the temple was not an excepted temple within the meaning of Section 9(5) and, therefore, a scheme should be framed under Section 57; that the lands which the appellants claimed to be theirs were in fact temple lands; and that the appellants had been guilty of mismanagement of the temple while carrying out the duties of trustees. All these findings have been challenged before us.

2. It will be convenient to take the question relating to the lands first. It is quite clear in our opinion that these lands were not granted to the appellants family, but have throughout been temple lands. There are two parcels of lands, one situate in the village of Bodogumala, and the other in the village of Bhavanipur, where the temple is situate. The Bodogumala lands were granted to the temple some time prior to the inam settlement of 1862. The register of inams shows that the original grantee of the lands was the deity of this temple and the title deed which was granted by the Inam Commissioner on the 3rd December, 1862, was granted to the great-grand-father of the appellants as the manager for the time being of this temple. Paragraph 2 of the grant reads as follows:

This inam is confirmed to you and your successors tax free to be held without interference so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled.

3. It will be observed that the grant was to the manager and to his successors and not to the great-grandfather of the appellants and his heirs. The register shows that the grant was given to the temple to defray the costs of daily pujas therein. In column 8 which is intended to contain the requisite information in the case of grants made for service, appear the words, " for the daily offerings of the deity service performed ". It is on the strength of these words that the appellants contend that the grant was to their ancestors personally, subject to their defraying the cost of daily pujas in the temple. But this construction cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the register specifically states that the name of the original grantee is the deity of the temple, and in face of the wording of the inam grant we have no doubt that the appellants and their forefathers have regarded the Bodogumala village lands as their own and have so dealt with it. The fact that they have done so does not alter the fact that it was a grant to the temple and not to them. The title to the Bhavanipur lands is based on a patta granted in 1880 to the paternal uncle of the first appellant. It is not necessary to discuss whether the fact that this grant was in the paternal uncles name makes any difference because