N. S. VEERABHADRAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is by the defendants questioning the findings recorded on issues 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30 in the negative in O. S. No. 10 of 2001 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Honnavar, dated 27-8-2001.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: the plaintiffs claiming to be the hereditary Archaks from time immemorial and have been performing their duties called 'poojapali'. This practice has been in vogue since ancient times, consistent with the custom. The plaintiffs' family have been exercising their right continuously, peacefully, openly and reasonably to the knowledge of all without protest or obstruction. This has moral and legal recognition apart from that of the public. This is a religious mandate and a question of right. Purohit being a symbolic Sacred Fire is "the leader" and not the servant as the niruktha and etimological interpretation and origin go. His duty is to secure the individual devotees 'adhi Bhautika', 'adhi Daivika' and 'adhyatmika' peace while conducting rituals outside the upadhi gambit and his realm extends to spiritual horizons, where there are no trustees of mundane assets of 'la munde'. Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to get emoluments in the form of share in the offerings made by the devotees. The ancestors of the plaintiff were not appointed by any authority and when the first consecration took place, there were no trustees. The trustees are only the managers of the properties of the trust who are expected to keep the sanctity and decorum in the temple which comes within the ambit of the management of the properties. The manager of the endowment cannot arrogate himself the power of removing a hereditary Archak having proprietary nature of right. He can be removed after filing a suit and getting a decree. Tiie plaintiffs have been holding office not at the pleasure of the defendants. Their dismissal does not come within the scope of the term of'administration of management' of the religious endowment. The plaintiffs are well-versed in conducting rituals pertaining to the "stalsampradaya" on the lines prescribed by Agama and tantras. They are men of character and have been leading austere lives. Their emoluments for the Upadhi vritti consists of Tastik which fetches Rs. 73. 00 (39-6-0 and 33-10-0) in all per year to the two families. Further, they get half share in the "phalavali" and the whole of the 'padiakki' received by the endowment. "phalavali" means the fruits, nuts, vegetables etc. , dedicated by the devotees either in the temple for decoration or at the alter. It is the symbolic sacrificial-dedication of the produce of the land grown by the devotees. 'padiakki' is the rice and coconut given by the devotees as dana to the officiating priest to take home. On this count, the priest has to accept the many negative karmas done by the 'dhata', to mitigate which the priest has to perform penance. It is a morsel of sin in a sense and its redressal calls for an austere life. The plaintiffs are entitled to get one anna in a Rupee worth of panchakajjaya placed at the alter at the time of Panchakajjaya pooja performed on the request of the devotees. Giving of dakshina depends on the volition of the devotees. Prior to 1950, the priests themselves used to collect dakshina for Panchakajjaya Neivedya in addition to half coconut for the coconuts offered. Since 1950, the trustees undertook to supply Panchakajjaya and started to collect its value from the devotees but the share in the offering viz. , one anna was shown separately in their accounts as that of the priests and given to them. That the plaintiffs' right which is in the nature of the property was and is being acquiesed by the defendants. Their conduct, omissions, commissions, resolutions etc. , estoppel them from acting in derogation of the same. The Archakship is not a job or a vocation but a hereditary religious office which they have to discharge ungrudgingly. This religious office

Click Here to Read the rest of this document