1. This is a suit instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against defendants Nos. 1 to 4, in whose family the office of Acharyapurusha in the Tirumalai Tirupati temples is hereditary, and against their alienees, and prays for the removal of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from the office of trustees of the suit properties, for the appointment of new trustees, a declaration that the alienations of the suit properties by the defendants are void, and an order vesting them in the, new trustees. The suit properties are inams confirmed to the defendants' family at the time of the Inam Settlement, and the original grant appears to have included the land itself as well as the revenue thereon. The inam registers state that they had been granted for service as Acharyapurusha in the Tirumalai Tirupati Devastanam so long as the service should be rendered, and the title-deed. Exhibit B, acknowledges the title of the grantee to a devadayam or pagoda service inam 'for the support of the pagoda called service of Acharyapurusha in the said temple.' The words the support of the pagoda called,' which do not make very good sense, were probably part of the common form drawn up for the confirmation of devadayam inam and do not add anything to the nature of the grant which, as also appears from the register, was for the service called Acharyapurusha in the said temple and was confirmed so long as the conditions thereof should be duly performed. The defendants denied that the lands so granted are held by them as trustees and contended that the suit was not maintainable under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Subordinate Judge held that the grant was for the benefit of the grantees though possibly burdened with certain trusts to a slight extent, and dismissed the suit apparently on the ground that no sufficient case of breach of trust was made out. It was the practice of former rulers to provide for the support of temple officers by grants of this kind arid great numbers of such grants exist not only in connection with this temple, as to which see Exhibit M, but also in connection with other temples throughout the country. Such inams are liable to be resumed under the conditions of the grant if the services provided for are not duly rendered; but, it has never yet been suggested that the lands so granted are held by the grantees on trust for the temple which can be administered by the Court, or form the subject of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. According to the definition of a trust in the Trusts Act, which is equally applicable to a charitable trust unaffected by that Act, a trust is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owners for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. The main object of the grant in this case would appear to have been the support of the temple officer discharging the duty of Acharyapurusha in the Tirumalai temple and the inam title-deed does not state that any portion of the inam was applicable to the temple. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the plaintiffs have failed to show that the grant was given, among other things, for the performance of festivals in the Nadamuni temple below the hill at Tirupati and that the property was held on trust for that temple as well as for the grantee named. We also think the plaintiffs have failed to show that the property was held on trust for the grantee named and the Tirumalai temple. The fact that, as found by the Subordinate Judge, it is the practice of the defendants to expend small sums on the performance of festivals in the Tirumalai temple itself is not enough, in our opinion, to show that the original grant was made to the grantee for the benefit of the temple as well as the grantee. Reference was made to the provisions in Madras Act VIII of 1869 that nothing in the inam title-deed, shall be deemed to affect rights of holders or occupiers of lands from which any inam is derived or to affect the interests of any person other than the inam-holder named in the title-deed, and if it could be shown that under the original grant either of these temples had a beneficial interest in the land itself or even in the revenue thereon, that interest would not be affected by a title-deed issued to a third party in which they were not named, but that is not the case here. In the result, we think that in the circumstances the suit which was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure fails and that the Subordinate Judge was right in dismissing it. The appeal is dismissed with costs.