BHOGARAJU VENKATA JANAKIRAMA RAO versus THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 31-10-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
BHOGARAJU VENKATA JANAKIRAMA RAO 
1963 
v. 
October 31 
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR HINDU 
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT ANDHRA PRADESH 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. SUBBA RAO, 
K.N. 
WANCHOO, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. 
MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. 2(2)-0rder 
passed on application under s. 57(9) modifying scheme framed under 
s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure-Whether decree-Point not 
raised in pleadings-Effect of-Madras Hindu Religious Endow-
ment Act, 1927, s. 57(9). 
A suit was filed by certain worshippers of a temple under s. 92 
of the Code of Civil Procedure for the settling of a scheme for its 
proper management and administration. The scheme was framed 
by the subordinate Judge and the same was confirmed by the 
High Court. 
On August 4, 1947 the Board of Commissioners of Hindu 
Religious Endowments filed a petition under s. 57(9) of the Madras 
Hindu Religious Endowments Act. 1927 in the Court of the District 
Judge for the modification of the scheme. Out of the many issues 
raised, two of them related to the remuneration allowable to 
Archakas and the Karnam, two classes of temple officials. The 
decision of the District Judge was that no case was made out for 
varying the remuneration payable to Archakas and Karnam under 
the original scheme. In appeal, the High Court substantially 
modified the provisions regarding remuneration. The High Court 
held that the Archakas should be entitled to claim only half share 
in the Dibbi collections and to a similar share in the pumpkins 
and rice offered at the time of the dedication of a calf to the deity 
and to no other perquisites or emoluments. As regards the Karnam, 
the High Court held that he should be entitled to a salary of Rs. 
25 per mensum. He might appoint a deputy in his place who 
should be a person acceptable to the executive officer. The Karnam 
was not to get any share in the Dibbi collections even if he chose 
to perform his duties personally. The appellants came to this 
Court after obtaining a certificate frorr. the High Court. 
The first contention raised by the appellants was that as the 
present proceedings originated on an application filed under s. 57(9) 
of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927, in the 
absence of any provision for an appeal conferred on the aggrieved 
party by the Act, the appeal to the High Court was incompetent 
and hence the changes made by the High Court were without 
jurisdiction. It was also contended that there was no justification 
f 
-
.r 
5S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
271 
for interfering with the items of remuneration, emoluments and 
1963 
perquisites sanctioned by custom and usage which had been re-
cognised after contest by decrees of courts. 
Bh:Jgaraju Ven-
Held: The appeal filed by the Board of Commissioners in kata lanakirama 
the High Court against the order of the District Judge was compe-
Rao 
tent and the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and deal 
v 
with the appeal. A scheme framed under s. 92 of the Code of Th B · d if 
Civil Procedure which is deemed to be a scheme under s. 75 of the 
e oar 
0 
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 is one which is Commissione7' 
framed in a suit and the scheme itself is a part of the decree in for Hindu Re/i-
the scheme-suit. It is for the modification or cancellation of gious Endowment 
such a scheme or rather of the scheme which is part of the decree Andhra Pradesh 
that s. 57(9) makes provision by the machinery of an application. 
If after hearing the application under s. 57(9), the scheme itself 
is cancelled, the previous decree will cease to exist. In such a 
case, it cannot be said that the vacating of the decree passed under 
s. 92 does not itself amount to a decree within the meaning of 
s. 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not make any 
difference if instead of the decree being vacated by cancellation, 
the same is modified. An order passed on an application under 
s. 57(9) is an amended decree against which an appeal lies under 
s. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
(ii) The reasoning of the High Court that the remuneration 
enjoyed by the Archakas should be disallowed to them because 
of the vagueness of the items, 
was not open on the 
pleadings and was not justified on the facts and hence the 
High 
Court was wrong in modifying the scheme. 
(iii) The High Court was wrong in modifying the scheme 
regarding the Karnam. There was no prayer in t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.