The court emphasized the importance of the trustee's valid appointment and entitlement to reimbursement for litigation expenses in the context of recovering temple funds.

1. The suit out of which this 2nd appeal has arisen was brought by one Authappa Chetty as trustee of the Kallalagar temple (subject to the supervision of the Madura Vishnu Devasthanam Committee) to recover from the defendant (appellant in this Court) the sum of Rs. 3087-8-6. The plaint alleges that the plaintiff was the lawful trustee of the Devasthanam between March and May 1902 during which period the defendant unlawfully collected moneys due to the Devasthanam for the recovery of which (with interest) the present suit was brought on 28th March 1903.

2. The defendant filed his written statement on 8th May 1908. His contentions (shortly stated were:

(a) that plaintiffs appointment in 1898 was legally invalid and hence be was not entitled as trustee to bring the present suit in 1903.

(b) that plaintiff had been rightly dismissed in April 1901 from his office as trustee and defendant was validly appointed in October 1901 by the temple committee and that defendant was therefore the legal trustee between March and May 1902 when he made the collections for recovery of which the present suit was brought, and

(c) that though defendant had ceased to be trustee in May 1903 when the written statement was filed, he had spent during the period of his trusteeship (from 15th October 1901 till 30th March 1903) sums on behalf of the Devasthanam over and above the collections he made between March and May 1902 and far from his owing anything to the Davasthanam, the Devasthanam would be found to owe him more than Rs. 1400 on the taking of accounts.

3. During the devious course of this suit, one Subba Naidu (appointed by the committee members as trustee in November 1903) was substituted by an order of 22nd November 1905 as plaintiff in the place of original plaintiff Authappa Chetty. That order of substitution was confirmed on appeal by this District Court and became final under Section 591 of the Civil Procedure Code (New Section 105). The defendant has not raised the contention that Subba Naidu was not legally competent to represent the Devasthanam interest from November 1905, though he may not properly represent Authappa Chettys personal right to claim the managership of the Devasthanam.

4. The lower Appellate Court held on the merits the defendant had obtained Rs. 2798-0-4 of the temple moneys into his hands, that he had properly spent only Rs. 676-5-8 out of it for temple purposes and that he owed on date of suit Rs. 2121-10-8. The defendants other objections were overruled and decree was passed for Rs. 2121-10-8 and interest at 12 per cent, from date of suit to date of the first Courts decree (9th July 1906), the parties to give and receive proportionate costs. (Subba Naidu himself died after the filing of this second appeal and the present temple trustee Anantha Krishna Naidu is now the respondent in this second appeal.)

5. The gist of the contentions advanced by the Appellants (defendants) learned Vakil before us may be shortly stated as follows:

(a) The lower Court should have given a decision on the validity of the original plaintiffs (Authappa Chettys) appointment in 1898 and of his dismissal in April 1901.

(b) The substitution of the proper trustee of the temple in 1905 could not lawfully convert this suit brought to enforce the personal right of Authappa Ghetty to the management of the temple into a suit brought in the interests of the Devasthanam for an account of the sums which came into the defendants hands as dejure or defacto trustee. The suit ought to have been dismissed as having abated as soon as Authappa Chetty withdrew from the suit in 1905. ,

(c) The suit is barred by limitation under Section 22 of the Limitation Act as when the substitution took place in November 1905, more than 3 years had elapsed from the dates (in March and May 1902) when defendant made collections of Devasthanam funds on behalf of the Devasthanam.

(d) The substitution itself of Subba Naidu was illegal and unauthorised whether the suit is treated as one