MAHANT NARAYANA DOSSJEE VARU Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES TIRUMALAI TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMAS TIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two final decrees made by the Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, on ascertaining mesne profits in O.S. Nos. 51 and 52 of 1957.

(2.) The Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams filed the said suits against Hathiramjee Mutt, the first to, recover possession of ten items of property situated at Tirupathi and Tirumalai and the other to recover one item of property at Tirumalai. The Tirumalai-Tirupathi Devasthanams are ancient Hindu temples looked upon with great reverence and worshipped by the Hindus living in different parts of the country. In 1843, the then Government of the country, which was till then managing the said temples through its agents, handed over their management to one Sevadoss, who was then the Mithant and head of the Hathiramjee Mutt at Tirupathi. Since that year, the temples had been under the management of Sevadoss and his successors till 1900 when the defendant succeeded as Mahant and took over its management. In 1933. Madras Act XIX of 1933 was passed, constituting the Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam Committee as a body corporate for the management of the said Devasthanams. Thereafter, the suits were filed by the Committee for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suits on 15-6-1942 in favour of the plaintiff for possession and for mesne profits from the year 1933. On appeal, thy High Court of Madras confirmed the decrees but allowed mesne profits only on items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 and items 7 excluding sub-items (d), (n), (o) and (p). The decree in the other suit was confirmed. Pursuant to the decrees, the plaintiff filed two applications I. As. Nos. 19 of 1946 and 20 of 1946 for the ascertainment of mesne profits. The learned Subordinate Judge appointed a Commissioner to take evidence and enquiry into the mesne profits. After a protracted enquiry -- the delay was mainly due to the obstructive tactics adopted by the defendant -- the Commissioner submitted his first report on 31-7-1951 and his second report on 17-12-1951. Both parties filed objections. The learned District Judge raised the following three points for his consideration : "1. What is the period during which the petitioner is entitled to mesne profits? 2. Whether the petitioners claim for mesne profits should be limited to the amounts claimed in the plaint? 3. What is the amount of mesne profits to which the petitioner is entitled to on each of the items?"