The reasons assigned for making this modification v. were two : (1) As a result of the modifications effected The Board of of by the learned District Judge, as regards which no Commissioners objection was raised, provision had been made for for Hindu Reli- the appointment of an executive officer whose duty gious Endowment it was to keep regular accounts, which would show Andhra Pradesh the particulars of the offerings made in the dibbi from which the share due to the archakas could be Ayyangar J. 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 this 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, 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 I/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
