Case: Bhogaraju Venkata Janakirama Rao  Vs. The Board Of Commissioners For Hindu Religious Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

the institution. "20. The learned judges of the High Court modified paragraph 17 by depriving the karnam of his share in the dibbi collections, even if he chose to perform duties personally and after the modification the paragraph read:"The karnam shall be entitled to a salary of Rs. 25 / - per mensem. He may appoint a deputy in his place who should be a person acceptable to the executive officer. "21. The reasons assigned for making this modification were two: (11) As a result of the modifications effected by the learned District Judge as regards which no objection was raised, provision had been made for the appointment of an executive officer whose duty it was to keep regular accounts, which would show the particulars of the offerings made in the dibbi from which the share due to the archakas could be computed, the karnam s duties and responsibilities had been lessened, if not eliminated. (2) Since the karnam, as a matter of practice, discharged his duties through deputies appointed by him, it was not necessary that the trustees should insist upon his personal attendance and the temple might therefore benefit from the practical abolition of his hereditary office the learned Counsel for the appellant contests the correctness of this approach to the problem and we agree with him that the learned Judges were in error in modifying S.17 of the scheme in the circumstances of the case. The office of Karnam was held by hereditary right and without entering into a discussion of the question as to whether such an office could be abolished and if so, in what circumstances, (sic) there was no prayer in the application by the Board to abolish that office and along with it the right of the karnam to the customary emoluments. The averment in paragraph 8(g) which we have extracted earlier, was (a) a complaint that the Karnam employed deputies on a nominal salary paid by him and that the work of these deputies was unsatisfactory, (b) Consequent on this, there was a prayer for a direction whereby when the karnam entrusted his duties to a deputy, the Karnam should not be entitled to the customary remuneration of an 1 / 16th part in the half share of the dibbi collections which pertained to the temple but only to the actual wages paid to the deputy. The subject-matter of the dispute which had to be resolved by the District Court and of the High Court on appeal was only whether the scheme framed in O.S. 1 of 1925 should be modified so as to provide for the payment of a lesser remuneration where the karnam employed a deputy. The learned District Judge had considered these matters and had given his directions in paragraph 17 of the scheme.22. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, did not address themselves to the pleadings and to the only matter in controversy before them viz. (1) should the karnam be entitled to appoint deputies to perform his duties and if so, in what circumstances and subject to what conditions, (2) In such an event what should be the remuneration payable to the karnam. Instead they proceeded practically to abolish the hereditary office and permitted him a nominal remuneration. It is unnecessary to consider whether it was such a drastic change that was intended to be urged in the relevant ground of appeal to the High Court which we have set out earlier, for we are clearly of the opinion that the learned Judges were in error in modifying in the manner they did para. 17 of the scheme. Let us see the actual effect of para. 17 of the scheme as framed by the learned District Judge. He recognised the customary remuneration of the office-holder. But that remuneration was not by custom intended to be a sine cure, to be drawn and enjoyed by the Karnam, he being at liberty to appoint a deputy at a nominal salary to perform the duties of the office. Normally the Karnam himself had to perform the duties and it was only when owing to unavoidable reason he could not do so that custom sanctioned the employment of deputy. By the order that he passed he recognised this also and made it incumbent on the Karnam to do duties personally in order to entitle him to claim the customary remuneration. The conditions set out in para 17 therefore were just both as regards the institution as well as the officeholders and gave effect to the customary rights and obligations of both. But by their order the learned Judges deprived the Karnam of doing duty himself and earning the remuneration customarily payable to him for such service. That, as we have pointed out, was not even the relief claimed in the application - assuming that such relief was claimable and could have been granted by the Court functioning under the Act having regard to the terms of S. 79 We have extracted earlier, a mater about which we prefer not to express any opinion.23. The learned Judges themselves appeared to recognise that the office being hereditary they could not abolish it. But if this were so, it was not proper to direct the virtual abolition of this office and depriving the officeholder of his customary remuneration merely because some portion of the responsibilities for keeping proper accounts of dibbi collection was entrusted to an executive officer. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the appointment of an executive officer would not by itself eliminate the need for a Karnam and the performance of the duties which custom and usage laid on him. We agree with him in this submission. In the circumstances, we are no justification for reducing his remuneration to a nominal figure. We consider the directions given by the learned District Judge proper and sound and are clearly of the opinion that they did not call for any interference by the learned Judges of the High Court.24.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. We are clearly of the opinion that the principle of the Full Bench decision cited does not apply to the application before us and that the appeal wasare clearly of the view that it makes no difference. The same matter might be viewed from a slightly different angle. The scheme-decree itself might have contained a provision granting liberty to a party to the decree to move the Court by an "application" for the modification of the scheme in stated contingencies. If in pursuance of such liberty reserved an application were made to amend the scheme-decree, the resultant order though passed on an "application" would certainly be an amended decree against which an appeal would lie under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. We need only add that the legality of such a reservation of liberty has recently been upheld by this Court. If the reservation of power or the liberty in the decree would produce such a result and render the amendment of the scheme an amended decree so as to satisfy the definition of a decree within S. 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, it appears to us that it makes no difference that such a liberty to move the Court to modify the decree is conferred not by the scheme decree but by an independent enactment such as the Act now before us. In the circumstances, we consider that the appeal by the Board to the High Court was competent and that the learned Judges had jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the appeal.In view, however, of the circumstances to be presently mentioned we consider that it is not necessary to pursue this line of argument. The appellants did not dispute that the share of dibbi collections etc. and other items of perquisites which had been fixed by custom and usage was really a remuneration for the the services performed. If that were so, it would follow that a radical change in circumstances might justify its revision. It might be upward or it might be downward. This position also was not disputed by learned Counsel. But learned Counsel was well founded in his submission that on the pleadings in the case and on the evidence that was led, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with paragraph 14 of the scheme as framed by the learned District Judge. It would be noticed that the learned District Judge had, in that paragraph, after making provisions else-where for safeguarding the interests of the temple and for streamlining the administration, allowed to the archakas the remuneration to which they were held entitled by custom and usage which had been proved to be established after contest in Courts. In O.P. 76 of 1947 which had been filed by the Board seeking modification of the scheme settled in O.S. 1 of 1925 they stated in paragraph 7(g) whose terms we shallreasoning of the learned Judges, therefore, that the remuneration therefore 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 by the facts in these circumstances we consider that the learned Judges were in error in modifying cl. 14 of the scheme framed by the learned Districtconditions set out in para 17 therefore were just both as regards the institution as well as the officeholders and gave effect to the customary rights and obligations of both. But by their order the learned Judges deprived the Karnam of doing duty himself and earning the remuneration customarily payable to him for such service. That, as we have pointed out, was not even the relief claimed in the application - assuming that such relief was claimable and could have been granted by the Court functioning under the Act having regard to the terms of S. 79 We have extracted earlier, a mater about which we prefer not to express any opinion.The learned Judges themselves appeared to recognise that the office being hereditary they could not abolish it. But if this were so, it was not proper to direct the virtual abolition of this office and depriving the officeholder of his customary remuneration merely because some portion of the responsibilities for keeping proper accounts of dibbi collection was entrusted to an executive officer. Learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the appointment of an executive officer would not by itself eliminate the need for a Karnam and the performance of the duties which custom and usage laid on him. We agree with him in this submission. In the circumstances, we are no justification for reducing his remuneration to a nominal figure. We consider the directions given by the learned District Judge proper and sound and are clearly of the opinion that they did not call for any interference by the learned Judges of the High Court.