Subba Rao, C. J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave raises the question whether a suit would lie at the instance of the present trustees of a temple for rendition of accounts of the management of the temple by the ex-trustees.
(2.) The appellant is Sri Vedagiri Lakshmi Narasimba Swami temple situated at Narasimhulykonda, Nellore taluk, in the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its trustees. The respondent and two others were non-hereditary trustees of the said temple and functioned as such for a term of five years ending with January 1951. The respondent was the managing trustee during that period. The new trustees were appointed by order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board dated January 21, l95l; but they were able to obtain possession of the temple only on July 21, 1952. They, representing the temple, filed O. S. No. 246 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore against the respondent- and others for the following three reliefs (1) to direct all or such of the defendants as may be found liable to render a true and proper account of their management of the temple and its properties since the date of their functioning as trustees and to pay over to the new trustees such amounts as may be found due:(2) to assess the amount due to the temple as a result of the various acts of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance of the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of their management, and to direct them to pay the same to the new trustees; and (3) to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver to the new trustees all documents, accounts, register, s. 38 register, jewels and movable properties after rendering a true account thereof and failing such delivery, to pass a decree against the defendants for their value, or pass such decree against them for such damages as the temple had sustained. In the plaint, the new trustees alleged that the defendants were guilty of acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance and also of gross negligence. The defendants, inter alia, apart from denying the said allegations made against them, pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in a civil court in view of the provisions of S. 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Act XIX of 1951), hereinafter called the Act.
(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, by his judgment dated August 12, 1953, held that the suit was maintainable. He also found that defendants 1 to 3 were liable to render an account of their management during the period of their trusteeship and to pay damages for the loss suffered by the temple on account of their acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance. In the result, he passed a preliminary decree in favour of the new trustees directing the respondent and defendants 2, 5 and 6 the legal representatives of defendant 3, to render a true and proper account of their management of the temple and its properties for the period commencing from the beginning of 1946 to the date when the plaintiffs took possession of the temple in July 1952 and to pay such amounts as may be found due from them on taking accounts. The 1st defendant, the ex-managing trustee of the temple, preferred an appeal against the said decree to the court of the District Judge, Nellore. To that appeal, the plaintiffs were made respondents. Pending the appeal the plaint was amended and the words "or pass such decree against them for such damages as the temple has sustained thereby" were deleted from prayer 3 of the plaint. On August 19, 1958, the learned advocate for the plaintiffs made an endorsement on the plaint to the following effect: "Plaintiffs have given up prayer in respect of the damages as endorsed by the learned advocate on behalf of the plaintiffs on the plaint on 20-8-58." The learned District Judge also recorded in his judgment that the appellant (respondent herein) did not press his appeal in respect of the claim for damages given up by the plaintiffs. Prima facie this amendment related only to the prayer to deliver to the new trustees the documents and other movable properties and did not affect the other prayers for rendition of accounts on the ground of malfeasance, misfeasance and non-feasance of the defendants. The learned District Judge understood the finding given by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge as follows: "Setting out all these things in detail in paras 13 and 14 of his judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to say that there is liability to account in respect of the management on the part of the ex-trustees, i.e., defendants1 and 3, and that they are liable to pay to temple whatever damages it has suffered on account of their acts of misfeasance malfeasance and non-feasance." After considering the relevant evidence and the case law on the subject, he came to the following conclusion: "I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiffs have established liability for ex-trustees to render account of their managment tar deliver possession of the other property yet to be delivered and also the records mentioned in the plaint." The learned District Judge, therefore, agreed with the learned Subordinate Judge that the defendants had to render accounts of their management of the temple and to pay to the temple damages suffered by it on account of their acts of misfeasance, malfeasance and non-feasance. In the result the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge was confirmed.;