Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This appeal is brought by certificate on behalf of the defendants against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dated August 7, 1962 in Appeal Suit No. 312 of 1957.
(2.) In the village of Varagali, in the district of Nellore, there is a temple in which is enshrined the idol of Sri Kodandaramaswami. The temple was built in the middle of the last century by one Burla Rangareddi who managed the affairs of the temple and its properties during his lifetime. After is death, his son, Venkata Subbareddy was in management. By a deed dated August 19, 1898 Venkata Subbareddi relinquished his interest in the properties in favour of one Vemareddi Rangareddi whose family members are defendants 1 to 5. The plaintiff filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments, Nellore, alleging mismanagement of the temple and its properties by the first defendant. Notice was issued to the 1st defendant to show cause why the temple properties should not be leased out in public auction and the first defendant contested the application alleging that the properties were not the properties of the temple but they belonged to his family. After enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner submitted a report to the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, recommending that a scheme of management may be framed for the administration of the temple and its properties. The Board thereafter commenced proceedings for settling a scheme and issued notice to the 1st defendant to state his objections. The 1st defendant reiterated his plea that the temple was not public temple. The Board held an enquiry and by its order, dated October 5, 1949 held that the temple was a public one. On January 8, 1950 the 1st defendant filed O. P. No. 3 of 1950 on the file of the District Judge. Nellore, (1) for setting aside the order of the Board, dated October 5, 1949 declaring the temple of Sri Kodandaramaswamivari as a temple defined in Section 6, Clause 17 of the Act, (2) for a declaration that the temple was a private temple and (3) for a declaration that the properties .set out in the schedule annexed to the petition were the personal properties of his family and they did not constitute the temple properties. Originally, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Board, Madras, was impleaded as the sole respondent in the petition. The present plaintiff later on got himself impleaded as the 2nd respondent therein. Both the respondents contested the petition on the ground that the temple was a public temple and that the properties mentioned in the schedule were the properties of the temple and not the personal properties of the 1st defendant. For reasons which are not apparent on the record the petition was not disposed of for a number of years. In the meantime Madras Act II of 1927 was repealed and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was enacted. Then came the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh. By reason of these changes the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments in the State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded as the 1st respondent to the petition. Thereafter there was a compromise between the petitioners 1 to 5 on the one hand and the Commissioner, the 1st respondent on the other. The District Judge, Nellore, recorded the compromise and passed a decree in terms thereof by his order, dated October 28, 1954.
(3.) The material clauses of the compromise decree, Ex. B-11 are as follows: "1. That Sri Kodanclaramaswami temple, Varagali, be and hereby is declared as a temple as defined in S. 6, C1. 17 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. 2. That petitioners l to 4 be and hereby are, declared as the present hereditary trustees of the said temple; 3. That the properties set out in Schedule A filed herewith be and hereby are, declared as the personal properties of the family of the petitioners subject to a charge as noted below; 4. That petitioners 1 to 4 their heirs, successors administrators and assignees do pay to the said temple for its maintenance 121/2 putties of good Mologolukulu paddy and Rs. 600 every year by the 31st of March; 5. That the said 121/2 putties of good Mologolukulu paddy and Rs. 600 due every year he a charge on the lands mentioned in Schedule A given hereunder; 6. That the petitioners 1 to 4 and their successors, heirs and assignees be liable to pay 121/2 putties of Mologolukulu paddy and Rs. 600 every year whether the lands yield any income or not; ********** 10. That the H. R. and C. E. Commissioner be entitled to associate non-hereditary trustees not exceeding two, whenever they consider that such appointment is necessary and in the interests of the management; 11. That the Managing trustee shall be one of the four hereditary trustees or their successors in title only and not the nonhereditary trustees; ********** 15. That the right of the 2nd respondent to agitate the matter by separate proceedings will be unaffected by the terms of this compromise to which he is not a party." It is apparent from the terms of the compromise decree that the temple was declared to be a public temple as defined in S. 6. Cl. 17 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and that the properties set out in Schedule A annexed to the compromise petition were declared to be the personal properties of defendants l to 5. The decree created a liability on their part to deliver to the temple for its maintenance 121/2 putties of paddy and pay Rs. 600 cash every ear. The present suit was instituted on October 31,1955 for a declaration that the provision in the compromise decree that the lands mentioned in the schedule were the personal properties of defendants 1 to 5 and not the absolute properties of the temple, was not valid and binding on the temple. Defendants 1 to 5 objected to the suit on the ground that it was not open to the plaintiff to seek a declaration that a part of the decree was not binding but the plaintiff should have directed his attack against the entirety of the decree. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was defective and that S. 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951 was a bar to the institution of the suit. Against the decree of the trial Court the plaintiff preferred an appeal-A. S. 312 of 1957 to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff also filed C. M. P. No. 6422 of 1962 praying for amendment of the plaint to the effect that the compromise decree in O. P. No. 3 of 1950 was not valid and binding on the temple. After hearing defendants l to 5 the High Court allowed the amendment sought for by the plaintiff and held that the amendment cured the defect with regard to the prayer for a declaration to have the compromise decree set aside partially. The High Court further held that S. 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was not a bar to the suit and S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act was not exhaustive and the suit was, therefore, maintainable. In the result, the High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to the trial Court for disposing the same on the remaining issues. ;