Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from a dispute over modification of a scheme for the management of Sri Venkateswaraswami temple in Dwaraka Tirumalai, West Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh. The temple was administered under a scheme settled on 28 August 1930 by the Subordinate Judge of Eluru in Original Suit No. 1 of 1925, a suit filed by worshippers under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The scheme had been confirmed by the High Court on appeal. The Madras Legislature then enacted the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, which by Section 75 deemed any scheme settled under Section 92 CPC to be a scheme settled under that Act, and Section 57(9) allowed such scheme to be modified or cancelled by the court on an application by the Board, trustee, or any person having interest. On 3 August 1947, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments filed O.P. No. 76 of 1947 before the District Judge, West Godavari, seeking modification of the scheme on numerous points. The District Judge rejected the modifications relating to the remuneration of Archakas and Karnam, two hereditary temple officeholders. The Board appealed to the High Court, which in Appeal Suit No. 357 of 1951 modified the scheme: the Archakas were restricted to half share in dibbi collections and certain pumpkins and rice, with no other perquisites; the Karnam was given a salary of Rs.25 per mensem, could appoint a deputy acceptable to the executive officer, but was barred from any share in dibbi collections even if he performed duties personally. The Archakas and the Karnam obtained certificates of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court first addressed the preliminary objection that the appeal to the High Court was incompetent because the Act did not provide for an appeal from an order under Section 57(9). It held that a scheme framed under Section 92 CPC and deemed to be a scheme under Section 75 of the Madras Act is part of the decree in the scheme suit; an order modifying or cancelling such a scheme under Section 57(9) operates as an amended or vacated decree, falling within the definition of decree under Section 2(2) CPC, and is therefore appealable under Section 96 CPC. On merits, the Court found that the High Court's modification of Archakas' remuneration was based on the ground of vagueness of items, a point not raised in the pleadings and not justified on the facts, especially since the District Judge had found no case for variation and the original scheme recognized long-standing customary emoluments. Similarly, the High Court's modification regarding the Karnam was held to be erroneous because there was no prayer to abolish the office or reduce his customary remuneration; the mere entrustment of some accounting duties to an executive officer did not justify virtual abolition. Accordingly, both appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the scheme as settled by the District Judge was restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Decree Definition and Appealability - Order under Section 57(9) modifying scheme framed under Section 92 CPC is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and appealable under Section 96 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 2(2), 92, 96; Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, Sections 57(9), 75 - The High Court entertained an appeal against the District Judge's order rejecting modification, though the Act did not provide for appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the scheme was part of the decree in the original suit and an order under Section 57(9) modifying or cancelling it amounts to an amended or vacated decree, it falls within Section 2(2) CPC and is appealable under Section 96. Held that the appeal was competent. (Paras 1-4) B) Hindu Religious Endowments - Scheme Modification - Archakas' Remuneration - Customary Emoluments - Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, Section 57(9) - High Court disallowed several perquisites based on vagueness without pleading or factual basis; the original scheme had recognized only half share in dibbi, etc. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong because the point was not raised in pleadings and not justified on facts, and the District Judge had correctly refused modification. Held that modification of archakas' remuneration was improper. (Paras 5-8) C) Hindu Religious Endowments - Scheme Modification - Karnam Office and Remuneration - Customary Emoluments - Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, Section 57(9) - High Court reduced Karnam's salary to Rs.25 per mensem and deprived him of share in dibbi collections and right to appoint deputy, without any prayer to abolish office or reduce remuneration. The Supreme Court held that there was no justification; entrusting accounting duties to executive officer did not warrant virtual abolition. Held that modification regarding Karnam was improper. (Paras 9-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal lay to the High Court from an order passed under Section 57(9) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 modifying a scheme framed under Section 92 CPC; Whether the High Court was justified in modifying the remuneration of Archakas and Karnam without proper pleadings or sufficient cause.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that an order passed on an application under Section 57(9) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 modifying a scheme framed under Section 92 CPC is an amended decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and appealable under Section 96 CPC. On merits, the Court held that the High Court erred in modifying the remuneration of Archakas because the reasoning was based on vagueness not raised in pleadings and was not justified on facts; nor was there any prayer to modify the Karnam's office or remuneration, and the entrustment of some accounting duties to the executive officer did not warrant virtual abolition. Accordingly, both appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the scheme as settled by the District Judge was restored.
Law Points
- An order under Section 57(9) of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act
- 1927 modifying a scheme framed under Section 92 CPC is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and appealable under Section 96 CPC
- A scheme framed under Section 92 CPC and deemed to be a scheme under Section 75 of Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act
- 1927 is part of the decree in the scheme suit
- Modifications to a scheme cannot be granted on grounds not raised in pleadings or unsupported by evidence
- Customary emoluments of hereditary temple officeholders cannot be abolished or reduced without specific prayer and sufficient cause
