RAGHUNATH VITHAL BHAT Vs. PURNANAND SARASWATI SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question on which there does not appear to be any direct authority. The facts are simple. Fifty years ago a Guru owned a temple at Sadashivgad and he appointed a certain person as a priest to perform "Puja" and other services to the deity on receipt of a certain quantity of paddy. The present plaintiff is the third, Guru in order of descent. The defendant is the son of the original Pujari who had two sons, the defendant and Dattatraya the plaintiff's case being that Dattatraya having a half interest in the office of Pujari transferred or surrendered it to him. It has been held in this Court in Mancharam V/s. Pran-shankar (1882) I.L.R. 6 Bom. 298 that hereditary offices, whether religious or secular, are no doubt treated by the Hindu text writers as naturally indivisible; but modern custom, whether or not it be strictly in accordance with ancient law, has sanctioned such partition as can be had of such property by means of the performance of the duties of the office and the enjoyment of the emoluments by the different coparceners in rotation. The Court said that "there. was no reason why the alienation of a religious office to a person standing in the line of succession, and free from the objections relating to the capacity of a particular individual to perform the worship of an idol or do any other necessary functions connected with it, should not be upheld." It was, therefore, in favour of alienations in the family of the original grantee of the office.

(2.) In Kuppa V/s. Dorasami (1882) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 76 it was held that the sale of a religious office to a person not in the line of heirs, though otherwise qualified for the performance of the duties of the office, was illegal. Mancharam V/s. Pranshankar was discussed and the Court was not prepared to go so far as to say that a purchase by a person standing in the line of heirs or otherwise qualified should be upheld.

(3.) We have been referred to no decision which differs from those cases and, therefore, unless there is direct evidence of custom, it should be taken that the transfer by one member of the family entitled to an hereditary office to an outsider would be considered by the Court invalid. The transfer by one member of his share to another member of the family could not be considered in any way objectional. It would only reduce the number of members who were entitled to the office and a share in the emoluments.