The court's decision emphasized the limitations of the Court's powers in amending a scheme under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and upheld the rights of the hereditary trustee while making necessary amendments for future good management.

1. These appeals are by the Zamorin of Calicut from decrees in two suits, O.S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1929, in the District Court of South Malabar, in both of which he was defendant 2. Both suits were brought under Section 63 (4), Hindu Religious Endowments Act, to amend a scheme of administration settled by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board (defendant 1 in both suits) under Section 63 (1) of the Act in respect of the Guruvayur Davaswom of which the appellant is a trustee (uralan). The plaintiff in O.S. 1 was the Malliseri Namburi, respondent 1 in A.S. 211. His claim was that ha also was an uralan of the Devaswom. His complaint was that the Board had in their scheme ignored his rights and he prayed that the scheme be amended in that respect. The plaintiffs in O.S. 2 were certain worshippers on whose petition the Board had started the enquiry, which led to the scheme. Their complaint was that the Board had accepted in toto the scheme put forward by the Zamorin and had not adopted sufficient safeguards for the proper management of the institution, and their chief prayer was that the scheme should be amended by adding to the number of trustees and placing the management in the hands of a Board of five trustees, three of whom were to be nominated, and a manager who was to be appointed by the Board. The appellant was the chief contesting defendant in both suits. He resisted the Malliseri Namburis claim to uraima on certain technical grounds which will be explained more fully later, depending on the construction of this decree of this Court in A.S. 8 of 1917 and Section 73, Religious Endowments Act. He resisted the suit of the worshippers on the ground that the amendments in the scheme as proposed by them were unnecessary. Toe Hoard, while adopting an attitude of unconcern about the rights claimed by Malliseri Namburi, was inclined to favour the proposals of the worshippers as to future management because, in its opinion, the appellant had not worked the scheme already settled by it in the proper spirit and it was improper to leave any longer an important temple like Guruvayur in the sole management of a hereditary trustee like the appellant who could never pay personal attention to the temple affairs both by reason of the great age at which Zamorins usually attain the stanom and the distance of their residence from the temple.

2. Two groups of questions thus arose in the suits, the first, relating to the claim of the Malliseri Namburi and the second to the amendments of the scheme which were either proposed by the worshippers and the Board or became necessary by the Namburis claim being allowed.

3. The learned Judge, in a very exhaustive judgment, upheld the claim of the Malliseri Namburi to be a hereditary trustee of the temple with rights in the management as declared in the decree in A.S. 35 of 1887 of this Court. He also made certain amendments in the scheme of administration settled by the Board which were either necessitated by the Namburi also being recognized as a trustee or which in his view were required for the future good management of the institution.

4. In dealing with these appeals together it will be convenient to deal first with the questions relating to the Namburis claim and then to deal with the scheme.

5. To understand the dispute about the Namburis right it is enough to state the principal events in bare outline. In Appeal Suit 35 of 1887, in a suit between the Zamorin and the members of the Malliseri illom, this Court went elaborately into the dispute and declared both parties to be entitled to the joint uraima right of this Devaswom and also that, except so far as an agreement therein marked Ex. O (Ex. 1 in this case) describes special powers as vested in either party, both have equal powers to manage all the affairs in respect of the temple. There were also some specific declarations relating to specific matters which are not now material. In 1912 four persons as relators with the sanction of the Advocate-Ge