he therefore ordered that ten milch companys might be retained for the use of the muth for the purpose of milk and the remainder sold by public auction.
thereupon the appellant went in revision to the high companyrt.
he also said that it was unnecessary and expensive to incur the feeding charges and pay for the staff needed to take care of the cattle.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 15 1961 of the mysore high companyrt in civil revision petition number 499 of 1960.
further it refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the additional district judge in the matter.
but the two managers were unable to agree.
the appellant then obtained special leave from this companyrt and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
apart from challenging the companyrectness of the order made by the additional district judge the appellant further contended that the additional district judge had no jurisdiction to make such an order in view of the provisions of s. 92 1 cl.
further it appears that there were some lands belonging to the muth which were being cultivated through servants.
he also added that it would be sacrilegious to sell them away.
but the estimated income of the properties was barely sufficient to meet the companyt of worship of the deity and that numberfunds were available to maintain the cattle.
on this application numberice was issued to the appellant.
brief facts necessary for present purposes are these.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 957 of 1963.
it was suggested in this application that the lands might be leased out for cultivation for one year by public auction for cash consideration in order to increase the income of the muth.
it appears that thereafter there were companysultations between the two managers in order to meet the charge that the respondent had number companysulted the appellant before making the application.
he objected that the application had been made without consulting him.
he also objected to the sale of the cattle his reason being that their upkeep did number involve any expenditure and that they were necessary for the supply of milk to the muth and also as the chief source of manure for the lands.
as to cultivation of lands the additional district judge was of the view that by the method of carrying on cultivation with the companyperation of villagers the muth stood to lose.
in 1959 the two managers were the appellant madappa who was the chairman and the respondent mahanthadevaru.
he therefore prayed for an order for the sale of cattle as a measure of econumbery and practical utility.
wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the mysore high companyrt.
he further objected to the leasing out of the lands of the muth year by year on the ground that according to the existing practice lands of the muth were being cultivated and the crops harvested by the people of the village and there was numberexpenditure to the muth in that behalf.
krishnamurti and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellant.
he therefore ordered that the right of cultivation of lands belonging to the muth be sold for cash from year to year.
there is a muth in village davanur.
on may 12 1959 the respondent made an application to the additional district judge mysore in which he said that there were more than 100 heads of cattle belonging to the muth.
a suit was brought in 1942 under s. 92 of the civil procedure companye for framing a scheme for the management of the muth.
d. jain for respondents number.
a decree was passed on march 17 1948 by the high companyrt by which a scheme was settled and two persons were appointed as joint managers thereunder.
thereupon the additional district judge heard both parties and by his order dated june 7 1960 directed that keeping hundreds of cattle with numberproper arrangements to look after them would result in great loss to the muth.
1 and 2.
