The Chief Justice.- The appellants are the hereditary archakas of the temple of Sri Malleswaraswamyvaru in the village of Chinnapulivaru in the Guntur District. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board notified the said temple under Chapter VI-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act and appointed an Executive Officer. He applied under section 78 of the Act for delivery of the lands in possession of the archakas which formed the subject-matter of the suit and the appeal on the ground that the lands belonged to the deity. The petition under section 78, O. P. No. 40 of 1945, on the file of the District Court of Guntur, was eventually ordered, and it is represented that in pursuance of the order in that petition, the Executive Officer has since taken possession of the lands. While the petition under section 78 was still pending, the appellants filed a suit for declaration that they were entitled to be in possession of the plaint lands and were not liable to be dispossessed by the Executive Officer. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, the District Court passed an order directing the petitioners to deliver possession of the lands. Therefore there was an amendment in the plaint adding an additional prayer, namely, to set aside the order of the District Court in O. P. No. 40 of 1945. The main case of the appellants in the trial Court was that the deity had no manner of right to the lands and the lands were attached to the office of archaka. The learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali held on a consideration of the entire evidence that the suit lands were granted to the deity and not to the archakas and the plaintiffs could not be permitted to set up a title adverse to the deity. As according to the learned Judge the plaintiffs were not entitled to be in possession of the lands, the suit was dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants very wisely did not challenge the correctness of the finding of the learned trial Judge as to the title to the properties. It must therefore be taken as established that the properties belong to the deity and not to the appellants. Ordinarily this finding must dispose of the case. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants very wisely did not challenge the correctness of the finding of the learned trial Judge as to the title to the properties. It must therefore be taken as established that the properties belong to the deity and not to the appellants. Ordinarily this finding must dispose of the case. But as pointed out in several recent decisions of this Court, in the interests of the general public and the satis- factory continuance of worship, it is not desirable that hereditary archakas who have been looking after the daily worship of the temple should be turned out of the lands which they had been enjoying partly in lieu of remuneration for their services and partly for defraying the expenses of the daily worship. In Appeal No. 285 of 1945, a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows: “We consider that in the interests of the temple and the worshipping public and the archakas who for generations have been hereditarily looking after the worship of the temple and enjoying the temple properties in lieu of remuneration a proper arrangement would be to permit the archakas to remain in possession of roughly about two-ihirds of the temple lands so long as they properly and faithfully perform the daily worship in defraying the expenses thereof and on condition of their having no rights of alienation.” Similar observations were made in a later judgment by Satyanarayana Rao and Chandra Reddi, JJ., in Appeal No. 218 of 1946. It is obvious that while the principle is of general application the allotment of the properties must depend upon the facts of each case. In the present case, we find that the total extent of the plaint lands is 20 acres 42 cents. These lands lie in three demarcation numbers, namely, No. 55 of an extent of 6 acres 29 cents, No. 52 measuring 9 acres 32 cents and No. 45 of an extent of 4 acres 81 cents. All the lands are wet lands. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we consider that it would be a just and equitable arrangement to allow the archakas, the appellants, to be in possession of demarcation Nos. 55 and 45. All the lands are wet lands. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we consider that it would be a just and equitable arrangement to allow the archakas, the appellants, to be in possession of demarcation Nos. 55 and 45. The income from the lands comprised in demarcation No. 55 may be taken by the archakas as their remuneration and the expenses of the daily worship may be met from the income from 4 acres 81 cents in demarcation No. 45. The appellants and their successors will be entitled to be in possession of the properties only so long as they perforin their daily services properly and faithfully according to the usages of the temple, meeting the expenses of the daily worship themselves. If they fail to carry out these terms it will be open to the Executive Officer to take possession of the lands and make other arrangements for carrying on the worship in the temple. The archakas will of course not have any right to alienate the properties allotted to them. The extent of 9 acres 32 cents in demarcation No. 52, will be in the possession of the Executive Officer or the trustee for the time being and the income therefrom shall be utilised for the general purposes of the temple including making provision for the other servants like paricharakas. If the Executive Officer is convinced at any time that the income on 4 acres 81 cents of land in demarcation No. 45 is not sufficient to defray the expenses of the daily worship, he will be at liberty to give such further amounts as may be necessary for the same. The appeal is allowed to this extent. The decree of the Court below dismissing the suit is hereby set aside and there will be a decree in the above terms. Learned counsel for the appellants represented to us that as the Executive Officer had taken possession of the entire lands and we have now declared that the appellants would be entitled to be in possession of demarcation Nos. 55 and 45 they would be entitled to the profits of these lands for the period subsequent to such taking over. That is not a matter, however, with which we can deal in this appeal. This is a suit for a mere declaration that the appellants are not liable to be dispossessed by the Executive Officer. 55 and 45 they would be entitled to the profits of these lands for the period subsequent to such taking over. That is not a matter, however, with which we can deal in this appeal. This is a suit for a mere declaration that the appellants are not liable to be dispossessed by the Executive Officer. The appellants will of course be at liberty to take such steps as they are advised for obtaining such relief as they .are entitled to on the basis of our judgment in this appeal. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. K.S. ----- Appeal allowed.