Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.
1. The appellant before this Court is the 1st defendant, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The plaintiff was the trustee of the Sri Venugopalaswami Varu temple of Alapadu village. As he failed to pay the contributions payable by the temple under Section 68 of the Endowments Act, a requisition was sent to the Collector under Section 70 of that Act and the plaint mentioned A and B schedule properties were attached by him. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit for a declaration that the A schedule properties alone were the properties of the temple and the B schedule properties were specially endowed properties and that he was liable to pay only a proportionate share of the contribution payable on A schedule properties and for an injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the order against the A schedule properties in respect of the entire contribution. The 2nd defendant is the archaka of the temple. He claimed the B schedule properties as his own aid contended that they were not liable to be proceeded against for the contribution.
2. The learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit finding that all the properties were temple properties and they were liable to be proceeded against for the entire contribution due to the Board. On an appeal, preferred by the plaintiff and the cross-objections of the 2nd defendant the appellate Court holding that the B schedule properties belonged to the 2nd defendant and could not be proceeded against for the contribution gave a decree declaring that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any contribution so far as the B schedule properties were concerned and restraining the Board from collecting the said contribution from the plaintiff.
3. The points for determination now are (1) whether the B schedule properties are the properties of the temple or not and could not be proceeded against for the contribution levied by the Board, and (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to, the injunction prayed for.
4. That the B schedule properties are to be enjoyed by the archaka so long as he performs the archaka service and offers nitya naivedya deeparadhanam to the idol is the case of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant as well. P. W. 1 the trustee stated that the properties belonged to the temple. The 2nd defendant the archaka stated as D.W. 1 that the patta for the lands comprised in schedule B stood in the name of the idol. In addition to this in the written statement filed by him in O.S. No. 114 of 1923 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla, he referred to the fact that there were some proceedings before the Inam Commissioner and he complained that the recitals in it in favour of the temple could not be availed of as against him. Unfortunately neither the sanad nor the extract from the Inam Register has been filed in this case. Admittedly the properties are to be enjoyed by the archaka only so long as he does service. If he does not perform, in whom, does the reversion vest? In the face of the admission of the 2nd defendant that the patta stands in the name of the idol and in the absence of any other evidence the lower Court ought to have found that the reversion at least vested in the temple and therefore the B schedule properties must be considered to be temple properties. It is unnecessary at this stage to speculate as to what; interest the auction-purchaser who purchases the properties in a sale held in respect of the B schedule properties for the contribution payable by the temple to the Board would get. It is enough to find for the purpose of this appeal that they must be considered to be temple property. The contention of the trustee that it must be considered to be a special endowment on the ground that it was endowed for nitya naivedya deeparadhana cannot be upheld because all that has to be done in a temple is the offering of naivedya and deeparadhana. An endowment for such a purpose is a general endowment to the temple.
5. In these circumstances I find that the B schedule properties were also temple properties and that therefore they are liable to be proceeded against for the contribution.
6. In view of my finding that the endowment even for nitya naivedya deeparadhana is a general endowment and not a special endowment it has to be found that the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction claimed.
7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit dismissed with,' costs of the 1st defendant Board only in all the three Courts. The Board's costs in all the three Courts will be paid by the temple as the trustee had to file the suit in view of the fact that he was not in possession of the B schedule properties as per the terms of the compromise entered into by his predecessor and which is also referred to in the Register maintained by the Board. The 2nd defendant will not be entitled to any costs in any of the Courts.