Judgment

GROVER, J.: This is an appeal by special leave and arises out of a suit filed by Muthu Bhattar against Seethalakshmiammal and her son Subba Bhattar alias Shanbagakarnnu who was a minor at the time of the institution of the suit. The other defendants were Thiruvathavoor Thirumarainathaswami Temple Devasthanam through its Executive Officer residing at Thiruvathavoor village, Melur Taluk and Thiruvedagam Devasthanam through its trustees, residing at Thiruvedagam Nilakottai Taluk. The suit was for a declaration and possession of 1-7/8 share of the Archakam service in the temple and also to recover 1/8 share in the Inam village of Kelavikulam attached to the Archakam service in the third defendant temple. Other reliefs were also claimed relating to the fourth defendant temple which, however, do not survive in the appeal.

2. It will be of assistance to set out the following pedigree table:

Subba Bhattar had bequeathed his share in the disputed properties and rights to his wife Parvathiammal. On November 20, 1929 Parvathiammal executed a deed of gift in favour of Duraiswamy who was described as her senior mother s son. The relevant part of the gift deed is as follows:

"I have conveyed to you under this deed the properties mentioned hereunder and worth Rs. 3,000/- together with pooja rights thereon and all my absolute rights pertaining thereto and whereas I have this day itself delivered possession of the same to you, you yourself shall discharge the debt upto the tune of about Rupees 10,000/- in respect of the same, you yourself shall hold and enjoy the said properties together with pooja rights in respect of the two temples at Tiruvedavur and Tiruvedagam for all times from son to grandson and so on in succession with powers of alienation by way of gift, exchange, sale etc, absolutely as you please."

The plaint in the suit out of which the appeal has arisen is a complicated document and it is unnecessary to refer to all the pleas taken in it. As many as 19 issues were framed by the trial court. It may be stated, however, that there was neither any pleading nor was any issue framed on the question whether the gift deed which had been executed by Parvathiammal on November 20, 1929 was in effect and substance a document which had been executed for consideration and that the properties and rights covered by the gift deed had not been conveyed by way of a gift and without any consideration. The real controversy centered on the question whether the plaintiff, who was the nearest agnatic relation of Parvathiammal s husband was entitled to succeed to the properties and rights which were the subject-matter of the gift in preference to Duraiswamy the donee who was only a agnatic relation of Parvathi Ammal s husband Subba Bhattar. This was particularly so with regard to the pooja rights which, according to the contention of the plaintiff could have been gifted by Parvathiammal only to the plaintiff who was the immediate heir and not to Duraiswami who was a remoter heir. The trial court dismissed the suit and its decree was affirmed by the first appellate court.

3. Before the first appellate court five points were agitated. Out of those only the second and the third may be mentioned. These are:

"(2) Is the gift by Parvathiammal valid?

(3) Even if not valid is it valid as a family arrangement?"

As stated in the judgment of the first appellate court the plaintiff s contention was that the will by Parvathiammal s husband and the gift by her were invalid because the pooja rights and inam lands were inalienable except to the immediate heir and that also if they had been conveyed without any consideration. It was almost admitted that the deed of gift executed by Parvathi was an alienation for no value but it was challenged on the sole ground that it was not in favour of the immediate heir. The first appellate court was of the view that the gift by Parvathiammal was perfectly valid. The court, however, did not accede to the alternative contention which