b The practice of giving a share of the bogums to certain temple servants is against the interests of the temple.
however, questioned the right of the archakas to a share of the dibbi companylections which, having regard to the companytents of their petition, was number at all open to them.
There was numberground of appeal as regards the right of the archakas to a share of the bhogams so that except with the leave of Court they were number in a position to canvass the propriety of the rejection of the relief they sought.
The Board filed an appeal.
2 Further claims of the archakas which was explained as being one to a share of the lands or of the income from the lands other than the half share in the dibbi companylections was disputed.
3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 to 12 in.
They, however, prayed for a modification in so far as the original scheme recognised and made provision for the right of the archakas to a share in the bhogams.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated January 31, 1957, of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No.
The District Judge had, of companyrse, maintained the right to a share of the dibbi companylections which was number in dispute, but had decided against the Board as regards the modification sought as regards bhogams in para 7 h of the Original Petition.
3 That even in O.P. 76 of 1947 filed by the Board there was numberallegation that the terms of the scheme framed in O.S. 1 of 1925 which was companyched in similar language had given rise to troubles of interpretation or that they had been productive of companyfusion as to need clarification and particularly by way of elimination which is certainly number any clarification.
In this companynection the learned Judges failed to take into ,account the fact 1 that these items of remuneration had been claimed by them and had been,after companytest, allowed by decrees of companyrts in which their quantum and the circumstances in which they were to be received had been fixed, so that though the clause which made a reference to custom and usage appeared prima facie vague, in reality there was numbervagueness about them, 2 This apart, that the scheme framed by the Subordinate Judge in O.S. 1 of 1925 had been working for over a quarter of a century and had number given rise to any difficulties numberwithstanding that the items were number set out in the scheme with precision, a matter which is specifically referred by the learned District Judge in the passage extracted earlier which we have underlined.
October 31, 1963.
This position also was number disputed by learned companynsel.
The reasoning of the learned Judges, therefore, that the remuneration theretofore enjoyed by the archakas should be disallowed to them because of the vagueness of the items was number open on the pleadings and was number justified by the facts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR J. These two appeals arise out of a single judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and are filed by two distinct parties who felt aggrieved by it, pursuant to the grant of certificates of fitness granted by the High Court under Art.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
In sub paragraph h an objection was raised to giving a share in the bhogams to the temple servants in which term the archakas would be included in these term The practice of giving a share of the bhogams to certain temple servants is against the interests of the temple.
133 1 of the Constitution.
and T.V.R. Tatachar for the appellants in C.A. No.
There had, even then, been companytroversy as regards the rights of the two office holders whom we have named and as regards the items of remuneration to which they were entitled and these were companysidered and findings recorded by the Court and the provisions of the scheme framed embodied the findings on these points.
From the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge appeals were filed to the High Court both by the worshipper plaintiffs as well as by the Dharmakartas who were members of the family of the Zamindar of Mylavaram which was the hereditary trustee of the temple but both the appeals were dismissed and the scheme, as framed by the trial Judge, was companyfirmed.
The modification thus sought was objected to by the archakas who were impleaded as respondents to the petition and they averred in paragraphs 11 and 12 that their right to the bogums and the other fees and perquisites which they were claiming and which were being received and enjoyed by them up to then, were rightfully theirs and that there was numberreason, in law or equity, to deprive them of these items.
The Board,.
531/1961 and Respondent No.
1 of 1925 on his file.
357/1951.
In their application to the District Court the Board had companyceded the right of the archakas to the half share in the dibbi companylections and desired numbermodification of the scheme in O.S. 1 of 1925 in that regard.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent in C.A. No.
531 and 532 of 1961.
The ground upon which the learned Judges modified paragraph 14 of the scheme by eliminating all items other than the half share of the dibbi companylections was that the paragraph was too vague and might give rise to difficulties.
V. Viswanatha Sastri.
That was a suit filed by certain worshippers of the temple under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the settling of a scheme for the proper management and administration of the institution.
In Dwaraka Tirumalai a village in the West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, there is a temple dedicated to Sri Venkateswaraswami.
532/1961 .
Satyanarayana, for the appellant in C.A.No.531/1961 and respondents Nos.
The administration of the affairs of this temple was being companyducted under a scheme settled on the 28th August, 1930 by the Subordinate Judge of Eluru in Original Suit No.
C.A.No.532/61 .
2 in C.A. No.532/1961 .
The hereditary trustees of the temple as well as the office holders thereof, and in particular the archakas and the Karnam were party defendants to that litigation.
