VEDAVYASA ALASINGA BHATTAR Vs. VEDAVYASA VENKATASUDARSANA BHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Vedavyasa Bhattar was a Dharmakartha of the Srirangam temple and the right of his family to a place in the Dharmakarthaship is still reserved in the scheme framed by the High Court in Sitharama Chetty V/s. Sir S. Subramania Aiyar (1915) I.L.R. 39 Mad. 700 at 721 : 30 M.L.J. 39. He had also certain mirasi offices in the temple with emoluments and perquisites attached to them. In 1870 the office of the Dharmakartha and certain mirasi offices were held by three descendants of the said Vedavyasa Bhattar, vis., (1) Sri Venkata Bhattar (2) Venkatasudarsana Bhattar and (3) Thatha Bhattar who then constituted an undivided Hindu family. Owing to dissensions in the family in 1870 they became divided in status and later effected a partition of their properties including the mirasi offices in a certain manner. Ex. Ill dated 1 January, 1876, which evidences the division provides, so far as the Dharmakarthaship is concerned, enjoyment by turns by the three members in rotation each for one year. The actual arrangement in the document was only for three years. But it is in evidence and not disputed that it was acted upon up to the date of the suit by the representatives of the various branches. In 1924 by a document, Ex. V dated 7 February, 1924, and styled deed of partition, four members of the family, representatives of the three branches who were parties to the deed of 1876, purported to effect a complete partition of all that they had kept and enjoyed in common up to that date. They affirmed the arrangement of 1876 and stated that the properties were being enjoyed in accordance therewith up to that date. Thirumalai Bhattar one of the parties to Ex. V died leaving no issue and the first defendant became his heir under the Hindu law in preference to the plaintiffs. It may be mentioned that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the first defendant were parties to Ex. V. The plaintiffs have now filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises praying for two reliefs, vis., (1) for "declaring that the plaint schedule offices, rights and perquisites lapse by survivorship to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 on the death of the said Vedavyasa Thirumalai Bhattar, on 12 November, 1927, and as a consequential relief (2) for directing (a) the first and second defendants to enjoy the plaint schedule offices, rights and perquisites with the plaintiffs in equal moities by turns or in any other manner the Court may deem fit to order, giving necessary directions therefor to the first, second and third defendants ".

(2.) Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding that the arrangement entered into in 1876 and 1924 were binding on the parties in virtue of which the first defendant is entitled to enjoy the share of Thirumalai Bhattar in preference to the plaintiff.

(3.) Mr. Rajah Iyer on their behalf has raised three contentions: One on a question of fact and two on questions of law namely (1) the office of Dharmakarthaship was in fact kept undivided and plaintiffs have succeeded to the share of Thirumalai Bhattar by right of survivorship along with defendants 1 and 2. (2). The Office of Dharmakarthaship and the mirasi offices are inalienable and impartible. (3) Whatever may be said of religious offices, the office of dharmakarthaship being in the nature of a bare trusteeship could not be the subject of a partition and every descendant succeeds to the trusteeship in his own right, not as a representative of another and any arrangement come to between the parties at one time could only bind them and not their successors.