Judgment Ramachandra Iyer, J. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellants, the hereditary poojaris of Sri Muthumariamman temple at Koniyur have also got vested in them rights as hereditary trustees. Srinivasan, J., from whose judgment this appeal arises answered that question in the negative affirming the view taken by the lower Court. Koniyur, where the temple in question is situate, was part of the princely State of Pudukottai. That State owned several temples and it is not disputed that Sri Muthumariamman temple also belonged to it. Exhibit B-4 the Pudukottai Gazette issued on 15th November, 1939 gives a list of the temples in the State together with particulars regarding persons in management of the same, etc. That shows that the temple in question was owned by the State of Pudukottai. Volume I of the Manual of the Pudukottai State gives an account of the Devasthanam charities in the State. At page 465 it is stated: “Private persons sometimes claimed that the management of certain temples should be transferred to their hands and this was sometime done.” Again at page 471 in the same volume a list of the several temples under the direct control of the State and certain other institutions entrusted to private persons is given. It is not the case of the appellants that this temple was handed over to them for management. Indeed there is a list of temples in the book to which we have just now made reference which were entrusted to private management for a particular period of time. The temple in question is not one among them. It can, therefore, be taken as proved beyond doubt that the ownership of the temple vested in the State. That fact would by itself negative the contention that the trusteeship thereof vested in an outside agency unless it be proved that the State had vested the truseeship in such a person. It is, however, argued on behalf of the appellants that inasmuch as for a long period of time the custody of the jewels belonging to the temple and the day-to-day administration of the temple had remained with the poojaris, a lawful origin for this usage must be assumed and the poojaris should be regarded as the trustees of the temple. It is, however, argued on behalf of the appellants that inasmuch as for a long period of time the custody of the jewels belonging to the temple and the day-to-day administration of the temple had remained with the poojaris, a lawful origin for this usage must be assumed and the poojaris should be regarded as the trustees of the temple. Reference was also made to the fact that on a particular occasion the appellants performed kumbabhishekam of the temple by collecting subscriptions from the public. But these circumstances in our opinion, are quite inadequate to show that the poojaris were also functioning as trustees of the temple. It is in evidence that the State Administration was having a close control over the poojaris in the conduct of worship. A hundial is kept within the temple precincts and large amounts are collected through this hundial from the worshippers. These hundial collections were never allowed to be handled by the poojaris: they were taken by the State and utilised for the benefit of the institution. Then again it was the State which fixed dhittam or the scale of the expenditure for the temple. Exhibits B. 7 to B. 14 show that the State was closley supervising even the ordinary acts of management of the institution. On the occasion of the kumbabhishekam referred to earlier, the poojaris who arranged for the same, obtained the permission of the State for such celebration. It is true that the poojaris collected monies for this purpose. But that circumstance cannot be of much significance particularly when we know that public help is generally sought for such purposes which are regarded as highly meritorious, from the point of view of Hindus. Mr. R. Rajagopala Iyer appearing for the appellants invited our attention to certain provisions of the Pudukkottai Regulations, namely, Regulation VII of 1912. The Preamble to the regulation sets out the necessity for control and supervision of religious institutions in the State section 2 thereof states: “The general superintendence of all endowments in land or money granted for the support of religious charitable institutions or for other pious and beneficial purposes-shall vest in the State Council.” section 6 states that where the trustee or manager or superintendent of any institution does not discharge his duties properly the State Council can remove him and appoint another. It is contended that the control which the State exercised over the temple are referable to this undoubted controlling jurisdiction which the State had in regard to management of the temples and other charitable institutions: and that they cannot be regarded as affording cogent evidence of the State continuing as the perpetual founder of the institution, and controlling its affairs. We are, however, unable to draw much assistance from the Regulation referred to, which is of a comprehensive character applying not only to religious institutions owned by the State but also to other privately endowed institutions. The fact that powers of supervision are vested in the State by means of statutory provisions in regard to institutions mentioned, cannot mean that previous to the enactment, the State had divested itself of the ownership of these temples which it had. But considerable reliance has been placed by Mr. Rajagopala Iyer on a grant made to the poojaris in the instant case for their services, and for the conduct of worship in the temple generally; learned Counsel also relied on the fact that the poojaris has made sub-grants of properties granted to them to the other service-holders in the temple. Exhibit A-14 is a title deed given to an ancestor of the appellants by the Dewan of Pudukkottai ; that is dated 12th November, 1895. This document says that Rs.200 should be spent per year for the daily trikalam puja in the temple and if the services are not kept up, the Government would be entitled to intervene in the matter. There can be little doubt that in regard to the balance of the income from the properties granted which covered an extent of nearly three velis of lands, the grantee should take it for his service as well as for the service of other persons in the temple. Exhibit-A. 15 is a copy of Faisal Register-Inam lands, Koniyur village. That refers to the fact that the lands which formed the subject-matter of the grant above stated were endowed for the performance of daily worship and festivals, etc. This document does in a sense support the contention now urged on behalf of the appellants that as the grant expects the grantee and his heirs to spend out of the income from the lands for the purpose of daily worship, etc., he should be regarded as the trustee of the temple. This document does in a sense support the contention now urged on behalf of the appellants that as the grant expects the grantee and his heirs to spend out of the income from the lands for the purpose of daily worship, etc., he should be regarded as the trustee of the temple. If Exhibits A-14 and A-I5 are the only evidence available in the case, one will be justified in coming to the conclusion that the poojari was intended to be the trustee of the institution as well. But we have other evidence in the case which unmistakably show that the State never intended to part with its own right of management of the institution. At best the grant under Exhibit A-14 can be regarded as making the grantee liable as a special trustee for the limited purpose of realising the income from the lands and utilising the same for the purposes mentioned therein. In regard to other matters of management, it is the Government that will be the superior or the general trustee as it was in the position of the founder-owner of the institution. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned judge that the appellants who are the hereditary poojaris of the temple and who as we have just now said are in the position of special trustees, in regard to the properties endowed under Exhibit A-14, are not the hereditary trustees of the temple in question. The appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. R.M.-----Appeal dismissed.