PANANGIPALLI SURYANARAYANACHARYULU Vs. PANAGIPALLI SESHAMMA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting point of law, namely whether the right to Archakatyam service is property within the meaning of Act XVIII [18] of 1937 and whether from and out of the family income of such property a maintenance holder is entitled to be maintained. The plaintiff's husband, one Gopalacharyulu, was the hereditary archaka of Sri Madanagopalaswami Varu, enshrined in the village of Podagatlapalli and of Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu and Sri Kothandaraswami Varu enshrined in the village of Vedireswarim. An extent of 32 acres and 15 cents comprised in items 2 to 10 of Schedule A annexed to the plaint was in the enjoyment of the said Gopalacharyulu as Archaka service inam. Gopalacharyulu died on 1st January 1940. Defendant 1 is his undivided son and defendant 2 is the undivided son of defendant 1. On the death of Gopalacharyulu, defendant l has been enjoying the said archaka service inam and rendering archakatyam service personally in the temples of Venkateswaraswami and Kothandaramaswami and, through a deputy, in the temple of Madanagopalaswami Varu. In addition he also died possessed of item 1 in Schedule A and other items mentioned in Schedules B and C. The plaintiff, widow of Gopalacharyulu, and the stepmother of defendant l filed O. S. NO. 34 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, in forma pauperis, and though she asserted her rights to claim partition in items 2 to 10 of Schedule A properties, she confined her relief only to maintenance from and out of the income of the family properties. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per year for arrears for the period from 1st January 1940 to 1st January 1944 and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 a year in addition to incidental reliefs. The learned Subordinate Judge held that she was entitled to maintenance from the income of the entire Schedule A properties and to a share in the houses and sites described in the Schedule B properties and also in the Schedule C movables. He awarded maintenance at the rate claimed by the plaintiff both in regard to arrears of maintenance as well as future maintenance. Defendant 1 preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the lower Court. Pending appeal the plaintiff died and the legatee under the will was brought on record. In view of the supervening event the only question that remains to be considered is the right of the plaintiff to arrears of maintenance.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the archakatvam service inams comprised in items 2 to 10 of Schedule A would not be property within the meaning of Act XVIII [18] of 1937, and that, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a share in them under the said Act. She would not also be entitled to any maintenance from and out of the income of the said properties as the income was not the family income but only the personal income of defendant 1. The relevant provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of Act XVIII [18] of 1937 read as follows : Page 2 of 7 Panangipalli Suryanarayanacharyulu and Anr. vs. Panagipalli Seshamma (died) and A...

(3.) The argument of Mr. Somasundaram, the learned counsel for the appellant, ignores the nature of the service tenure and the character of the grant. The origin of the archakatvam service inams is lost in antiquity. A brief history of the origin of this archakatvam service and its incidents was given by Seshagiri Aiyar J. in his referring judgment to the Full Bench case reported in Annaya Tantri v. Ammakka Hengsu, 41 Mad. 886 : (A. I. R. (6) 1919 Mad. 598 F.B.), In his view this archaka service grants had their origin it the time of Puranas when temples came into existence. Citing slokas from the writing of Vaidyanatha Dikshitar the learned Judge pointed out the inferior status of the archakas who were looked down upon and considered to be a very inferior class of Brahmins Saathathapa says :