HANSO PATAK Vs. HARMANDIL PATAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim put forward by the plaintiff is that his is entitled to a share in the house built by his father out of his income as a Pandit, inasmuch as the same work had been carried on by his grand-father and therefore the right to receive such income is a part of the family property. No doubt it has been found that the plaintiff's grand-father was a Brahmin who officiated as a Pandit in the houses of his clients and received some, income and that after his death the plaintiff's father carried on the same work. But the learned Judge has pointed out that his profession consisted of going from house to house for picking up such work as he might come across and for rendering religious ministration to those who wanted it. The mere fact that most of the patrons of the father might have been member of the families which had previously patronised, the grand-father, does, not create any vested interest in the plaintiff's family to force their services upon such patrons. If the right to receive offerings were connected with any and in the occupation or user of the family or with any temple at which they were officiating, the right might possibly be a family property; or again if then were a service which could be rendered even against the will of others, on whom it is to be imposed, it might be claimed as of right. But the income received as amounts paid by people at their discretion either by way of charity or by way of remuneration for personal services rendered, cannot be claimed as of right, and cannot in my opinion, amount to a family property.

(2.) No doubt in some cases in the Bombay High Court referred to by my learned brother the opinion has been expressed that hereditary priests can force their service's upon members of a caste. It may be that there are some peculiarities in the Customary law of Bombay with which I am not familiar. It is therefore not necessary for me even to suggest that these rulings require reconsideration. But I would certainly say without hestitation that a claim to force one's services as a priest on other families would never be tolerated by the Hindu community, or, for the matter of that by any other community in these provinces. The income received in such a way must, be treated purely as the personal property of the Pandit concerned and not the property of his joint family. As there is no suggestion that the father had received any special training at the expense of the family, the income received by him cannot be treated as "gains of science," so as to become a joint family property.

(3.) I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. Mukerji, J.