- (1.) The appeal is by special leave from the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The appellant has also filed a writ petition and as the two matters are connected, they will be dealt with together.
(2.) The appellant is Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Ganeriwal. He is also the petitioner in the writ petition and will hereafter be referred to as the appellant. The main respondents, who are also opposite parties in the writ petition, are the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad. They will be referred to hereinafter as the respondents. The appellant claims to be the sole hereditary trustee and Mutwalli of the temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan and the subsidiary deity Shri Varadarajaswami, situate at Sitaram Bagh, in Hyderabad. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century, an ancestor of the appellant migrated to Hyderabad and carried on business there. He obviously prospered and in or about 1833 he built a temple at a cost to two lakhs of rupees and installed in it the idols of Shri Rama and other ancillary or subsidiary deities and consecrated the temple for public benefit and worship. In 1841, one Maharaja Chandulal, a minister to the then Nizam, granted a jagir consisting of the villages of Akolee and Bordee in Berar for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. Later, however, these villages were resumed by the Nizam and two other villages were granted instead to the temple. It appears that these two, other villages were also resumed, and the village of Bulgaon was granted to the temple in 1850. It also appears that though village Akolee was resumed, the resumption order was not carried out and that village continued in the possession of the temple, so that since 1850 the temple has been in possession of the two villages for its upkeep and maintenance. In 1853, Berar was transferred to the British Government of India by the Nizam and these two villages therefore came under the administration of the Government of India. In 1859, some doubts arose about the title of the temple to the villages and there were enquiries under the Berar Inam Rules. Eventually, it was decided that the title of the temple was good and the villages had been assigned with the rest of Berar to the Government of India for administration and that they had been granted in jagir for a religious object and their devolution was governed by R. IV of the Berar Inam Rules. Thereafter Inam certificates were issued with respect to these two villages in the name of Ramlal, son of Hargopal, who was described as the Manager of the jagirdar, Shri Sitaramji Maharaj of Akolee and Bulgaon. The purpose of the Jagir was mentioned as "for charitable expenses of temple of Shri Sitaram Maharaj situated in the Sitaram Bagh, at Hyderabad" In the twentieth century there was considerable litigation between the members of the family of the founder as to the right of management of the temple. Eventually, it was decided in 1932 that Lakshminivas Ganeriwal, father of the appellant, was to be the manager of the jagirdar, and this decision was finally confirmed in 1933 by the Governor of the Central Provinces. The Government of Hyderabad was trying all along to find out how the income of this jagir was being spent. But it was decided that it was the Government of the Central Provinces alone which had the right to call for accounts of the villages and was responsible to see that the conditions of the grant were fulfilled and in 1941 this position seems to have been accepted by the Government of Hyderabad.
(3.) After the Constitution came into force from January 26, 1950, the State of Madhya Pradesh took the place of the old Central Provinces and Berar. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted a law known as the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, No. 1 of 1951. In consequence of this law, the two villages were taken over by the State and statutory compensation was awarded. In addition an annual cash grant of Rs. 8,470/- was sanctioned by the State for the upkeep of the temple. Besides this grant, there was a large area of home farm land in the two villages, which was in the possession of the trustee or the benefit of the trust, and it is said that an income of Rs. 1,30,000/- was being realised by the trustee from this home farm land. It further appears that there are hereditary pujaris and mahants of the temple, and these persons had been complaining to various authorities in Hyderabad that Lakshminivas Ganeriwal was misappropriating temple funds on a large scale and neglecting his duties as a trustee and otherwise committing breaches of trust. In 1951, three of the hereditary pujaris filed a complaint before the Government of Hyderabad alleging various acts of mismanagement on the part of the trustee. This was inquired into by the Home Mininster of the State of Hyderabad and he directed that the temple should be managed by a committee of five persons and this was said to have been done with the consent of Lakshminivas Ganeriwal. Later, however, Lakshminivas contended that he had never consented to the appointment of the committee, which would curtail his rights as hereditary trustee. Thereupon, the Home Minister directed the Director of Endowments to make a thorough inquiry into the matter. In the meantime, one of the hereditary pujaris filed a petition under S. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (No. XIV of 1920) alleging various acts of mismanagement and praying for an order directing rendition of accounts, before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In March 1956, the court directed rendition of accounts and appointed an auditor to scrutinise them. The auditor went into the accounts and made a report showing several gross irregularities therein. In the meantime Lakshminivas Ganeriwal applied for the registration of the temple under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act (No. XXX of 1951) and in June, 1955, the Registrar of Public Trusts directed the registration of Shri Sitaram Maharaj Sansthan, Sitaram Bagh, Hyderabad as a public trust under S. 7 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act No. XXX of 1951.;