Aromalla Gurunathan Yogi and Another vs Arimanda Raghavayya and Others

These appeals arise out of two suits filed by two worshippers for a scheme for two temples, the Sangimaswara Swami Temple and the

Bheemeswara Swami temple. An application was made to the Collector for sanction to file the suits but sanction was refused by the Collector and

the present plaintiffs without bringing this fact to the notice of the Advocate-General got ex parte sanction. As the sanction stands unrevoked, this

would not affect the right of the plaintiffs to sue though it may be taken into consideration in considering the bona fides of the petitioner. The plaints

were filed on the 29th July 1921 in both the suits. They were adjourned from time to time for various reasons and finally on the 24th August 1922,

i. e., more than a year after the suits were filed they came on for hearing. On that date it was adjourned to the next day on the 25th August 1922.

Exhibits were filed and three witnesses were examined. Then a compromise petition was filed, and as plaintiff 2 on the one side and some of the

defendants on the other were absent, the case was adjourned to the 28th. On the 28th the only person who objected to the terms was the plaintiff

2 and Judge, Aiding that one of the plaintiffs objected held that he could not sanction the compromise although the other parties consented. He

proceeded with the suit. Plaintiff 2''s vakil said he had no instructions to go on and plaintiff 2 did not examine any witnesses or proceed with the

suit. The learned Judge upon the findings on record held that there was no ground for framing a scheme for these temples and he dismissed both

the suits with costs.

Two grounds are taken in appeal. The first is that on the materials before the Court a scheme ought to have been framed and the second is that

the Judge ought to have adjourned the case for the purpose of the plaintiff 2 calling further evidence. As regards the adjournment we think that on

the facts of this case the learned Subordinate Judge was right in refusing to adjourn the case any further The parties ought to have been ready on

the 25th with all their evidences; the use was one filed more than a year before the trial was taken up and the mere fact that a compromise was

suggested and a short adjournment was asked for is no ground for not going on with the case if the compromise fell through. We cannot say that

the Judge ought to have further adjourned the case to enable the parties to call their evidence It is alleged that the pleader for plaintiff 2 declined to

proceed with the suit. No reason is however given as to why he declined to go on with the suit and there was no reason why if he refused, the

plaintiff should not go on with any evidence he had, when the Judge refused to grant the adjournment. The vakil filed no affidavit. On his part of the

case the question is whether having regard to the circumstances of this case the Judge should have further adjourned a part-heard case which was

going on and which was only interrupted because the parties said they wanted to compromise and I do not think the facts in the affidavits show that

there was any good ground for any further adjournment.

Turning to the merits, there is no ground shown for any scheme being framed. There is no mismanagement by the archakas which appears in the

evidence. The evidence shows that the yield was about half a putti per acre. The archakas had not only to maintain themselves out of the income

but they had to see that the puja of the temple was properly performed and the naivedyams and offering to the god presented daily. There is

nothing in the evidence to show that the archakas are misappropriating the income and not performing the services of the temple. So far as the

temple is concerned, it appears from the inam register that the archakas have always been in possession of the lands and utilizing the rents and

profits for the services of the temple and for the archaka services which they performed. The inam service register Ex. A is dated 24th August

1860. The statement of the then archaka is Ex. B. It is dated 1859 and shows that even in 1859 the archakas were in possession. There was no

trustee of the temple and the lands were given for the performance of the puja and observing the daily offerings of food and light and other rites

which have been going on in the same way and also for Sivarathri, Navarathri, and Sankaranathi festivals. There is nothing to show that the puja

has not been performed by the archakas or that any reason exists for a scheme being framed for the purpose of taking the lands out of the

possession of the archakas and vesting it in trustees. No malversation is proved and the record does not show that the archakas set up any title in

themselves to deal with the property as their private property. Even in the lease-deeds which are filed they have described the property as

devadayam property. As regards the three acres which are not covered by the inam grant, they set up a title of their own, but, prima facie

properties '' outside the'' inam grant would be private property unless it is shown that they have been acquired with the help of the funds of the

temple which is not the case that is proved now before us. The question shortly is, is there any necessity for any scheme. Has there been any

mismanagement or misappropriation of the properties and would it be in the interests of the temple to have an elaborate scheme vesting the

property in trustees? On the evidence the Subordinate Judge thought there was no necessity for a scheme and we agree with him. Should the

archakas in future do anything to the detriment of the temple or if they fail in their duty, it will be time for a proper suit being filed and a scheme

being asked for. We do not think the mere fact that a suit is filed for a scheme on an ex parte sanction by the Advocate General is by itself a

ground for a scheme being framed.

The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. The three miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.