(1.) The plaintiff in this case is one of the pujaris of the well-known temple of Shri Bhargavram near Chiplun. He filed the present suit to recover Rs. 91-8-0 as damages from defendants Nos. 1 to 10, the Guravs, connected with this temple. He also prayed for an injunction restraining them from collecting the offerings made to the deity during the period of his turn to serve as a pujari. His allegation was that as one of the hereditary pujaris of this temple he had the right to officiate in the months of Magh and Phalgun of the Shake year 1838 and that during that time the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 forcibly prevented him from entering the temple and from receiving the offerings laid before the deity. The plaintiff s claim was that he was entitled to receive these offerings in accordance with the long-established usage of the institution, according to which the offerings were to be appropriated by the pujaris. The Guravs defended the suit on the ground that they were entitled to the offerings. They also contended that the suit was not maintainable. At a later stage the defendants Nos. 11 to 15, who are members of the Devasthan Committee appointed by the District Court, were joined as parties to the suit. They contended that the Guravs had no right to take the offerings and that the Ganpules were entitled to take the offerings in accordance with the arrangement arrived at in 1841 between the then pujaris and the members of the Devasthan Committee which was at that time appointed by the Collector of the District.
(2.) The trial Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to act as pujari at the time mentioned in the plaint; that the Guravs had taken away offerings to the extent of Rs. 66 and that, according to the evidence, if the suit was maintainable, the sum awardable to the plaintiff would be Rs. 35. The trial Court was of opinion that the suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was brought on the ground that the offerings to the deity were voluntary and uncertain and that these offerings would not be property within the meaning of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the result, the plaintiff s suit was dismissed.
(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and subject to a slight variation as to the amount, which might be payable to the plaintiff if the claim were maintainable, the appellate Court affirmed the view of the trial Court. It may be mentioned that in the course of the trial, the plaintiff admitted through his pleader that the offerings to the deity belonged in the first instance to the temple and formed part of the property of the temple; but he maintained that in virtue of his right as an hereditary pujari and in accordance with the long-established usage of the institution, he was entitled to appropriate that sum. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the Assistant Judge who heard the appeal.