MUTTEVI PATTABHI RAMANUJACHARYALU Vs. PEDDINTI ALAHASWGARACHARYALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff (Respondent) to recover the office of Archakar of a certain temple for 4 days in each month. The post was held by the plaintiff s mother up to her death in 1901, partly in virtue of a demise (Exhibit III) executed by her husband in 1877 shortly before his death, and partly in virtue of the decree of this Court, Exhibit VIII(b) in Second Appeal No. 1185 of 1896, declaring her right to succeed to that portion of the office (2 days monthly) which the plaintiff had succeeded to on his father s death and which he resigned in 1894.

(2.) The correctness of the present decree in so far as it relates to the first portion is not questioned in the coarse of the hearing in this court, but the plaintiff s right to succeed to the 2 days office which he formerly held and resigned is impugned on two grounds : - (1) that he became permanently incapable of holding the office in 1894 by reason of misconduct with a Sudra woman; (2) that in accordance with the ordinary rules of Hindu inheritance, not the plaintiff, but the plaintiff s heirs are entitled to succeed on the death of his mother Rathamma.

(3.) As regards the first objection, the District Munsiff has unmistakeably found that the misconduct charged (adultery and taking meals with a Sudra woman) was not established. The Subordinate Judge s conclusion has not been very clearly set forth in paragraph 11 of his judgment; but we understand him to mean that there is not sufficient evidence to establish misconduct of such a nature as to entail disqualification for holding the post of Archakar. Looking to the distant period at which the misconduct is said to have occurred, and to the fact that it does not appear to have been followed by any definite action of the plaintiff s castemen, we consider that the lower courts were right in requiring very strong evidence of misconduct, and their findings are justified.