MUKKU VENKATRAO Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition filed against the decree of the learned District Mun-sif of Chodavaram in S. C. S. No. 56 of 1952.

(2.) The facts are: The plaintiff filed the suit claiming a share of the emoluments received by the defendants for officiating as 'Puro-hits' at the marriage and other auspicious ceremonies conducted by them in the houses of Vysyas at Kothavalasa Dabalu. The plaintiff as P. W. 1 stated that the right to officiate as 'Purohit' in the houses of Vysyas at Kothavalasu Dabalu exclusively belonged to him and that nobody else can officiate as such and that he had a right to collect a half share of the emoluments collected by the defendants-usurpers and that in fact the defendants have been giving him his share of the emoluments. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was only for a share in respect of emoluments paid to 'Purohits' on a voluntary basis and that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was wholly false. The learned District Munsif found as a point of fact that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was not true and as a point of law that the suit in respect of voluntary offerings will not lie. He therefore dismissed the suit and hence this civil revision petition.

(3.) I am in entire agreement with the learned District Munsif on both these points. As regards the finding of fact that the agreement set up has not been proved, it is binding qn me and cannot be interfered with in revision, apart from the fact that as pointed out by the learned District Munsif the plaintiff adduced no reliable evidence and that the defendants have adduced reliable evidence that the agreement set up is untrue. Therefore point (1) fails.