This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 30th April, 1943, setting aside a decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly, dated 7th March, 1941, whereby in a suit instituted for that purpose by appellants 1 to 4 a scheme framed by the first respondent Board under section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act II of 1927) for the proper administration of the Sri Papavinasaswami Temple at Papanasam (hereinafter referred to as “the Temple”), and of certain endowments (called Kattalais) for special religious services therein, was substantially modified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------- (1947) 2 M.L.J. 315 at page 316 ----------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In explanation of the nature of the dispute in this case, it may be stated at the outset, that in the Temple (as in similar other temples in South India) there are, inter alia, four or five well-defined periods of daily worship, for the due performance of each of which an endowment or Kattalai exists, the name of the particular Kattalai being indicative of the period of worship with which it is associated. Thus at the Temple there is an early morning worship, a midday worship, an evening worship and a midnight worship, called Ardhajama Kattalai. The. dispute in this case relates to the last-named Kattalai. As is explained in the judgment of the High Court in this appeal, the term “Kattalai” as applied to Temple endowments in Southern India signifies a special endowment for certain specific religious services in the Temple. In this sense the word “Kattalai” is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the Temple itself. In the case of some important temples the sources of their income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance and each endowment is placed under a special trustee and specific items of expenditure are assigned to it as legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Each of such endowments is called a “Kattalai”, and the trustee who administers it is called a“Kattalai-gar” (see Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Somasundara Mudaliar1).

The Temple in this case is an ancient one and of great repute. Except for a small annual allowance of Rs. 1,600 from the Government and a few sites in which there are some shops from which a small rent is derived, and equally small collections from worshippers, there are no properties belonging to the Temple. The worship is conducted from the income derived from the special endowments known as Kattalais. The Temple has a general trustee (present respondent No. 2) but, in addition, each of the said Kattalais is in the charge of a special trustee or trustees. The midnight Kattalai relates to ceremonials connected with bathing, clothing and feeding the image previous to its retirement for the night.

The properties of the said midnight worship consist of both inam (rent free) and ryotwari or ayan (assessed) lands, situated in the Ambasamudram Taluq of the Tinnevelly District in the Madras Province; and the income thereof is, and has been, applied towards meeting the expenses of the said midnight worship and of other services in the Temple. After meeting all such expenses, however, there remains a surplus, which is claimed by the appellants (plaintiffs) for their own benefit. The respondents say that this surplus is part of the religious endowment and the appellants have no beneficial interest in it.

The appellants claim that, as the heirs and successors of the original donors, who founded the said endowment, they are entitled to the surplus left over from year to year; there was never any absolute dedication of the properties and, in accordance with long-established usage, the expenses of the midnight service are to be incurred according to a fixed scale, and that these expenses