A gift of an office of a trustee in favour of the next or immediate heir is valid, but a transfer for consideration or to one among several heirs next in the line of succession is not valid.

V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- In Mayuram, Thanjavur District, there is a Droupathy Amman temple with other subsidiary deities stated to have been founded by the ancestors of the parties to this litigation more than a century and a half ago. In and around this temple, there has been large extent of open ground, which, in the course of time and by reason of its situation abutting the main road, became valuable and is now stated to be fetching a good income. The temple and its affairs were in the management of eight families. One family is stated to have become extinct long long ago. There were disputes and civil proceedings in courts between the families regarding the management of the temple and its properties. By 1894, there were only seven families, which were entitled to the management. Six of the families filed O. S. No. 379 of 1894 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mayuram, against one Kuppuswami Padayachi representing the seventh family to establish their right to turn management. The dispute was referred to arbitration and in terms of the award made by the arbitrator, a decree was passed on 28-2-1895 in that suit. The award specified that each of the families should enjoy the turns in the order in which they were ranged in that suit. One of the turn holders sold his rights under the decree in favour of one of his grandsons through a daughter. The alienee got into possession and disputed the rights of the other turn holders which again led to the filing of O. S. No. 95 of 1913 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram. The rights of the seven families as turn holders was again confirmed in the judgment which is marked as Ex. A-1 in this case. There is no dispute that each turn holder was to be in possession of the temple and the management of its properties for a period of two years. These are the admitted and common facts. The suit was filed by the appellant herein for a declaration that he is entitled to the turn of the first family in addition to the turn as the turn-holder of the fourth family and to substitute himself as a party in O. S. No. 95 of 1913 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayuram, as a representative of the first family turn-holder thereto and get the rights secured to the first family under that decree. The second, third, fifth, sixth and seventh family turn-holders, the three other brothers of the plaintiff forming the fourth family and the two daughters' sons of Govinda Padayachi, the first family were the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff's case was that by a registered gift deed dated 19-8-1920 Govinda Padayachi, the first family turn-holder conveyed his right to hold and enjoy his turn-management of the temple and its properties and the right to enjoy the income for two years to the plaintiff. When the turn-management came in 1939, he filed E. P. No. 61 of 1939 in O. S. No. 95 of 1913 to recognise his right to the office by reason of the assignment thereof under the deed of gift aforesaid. The daughters' sons of Govinda Padayachi, who are defendants 9 and 10 in this suit, also applied in E. P. No. 31 of 1940 to be recognised as persons entitled to the Poojari office and its management as the legal heirs of Govinda Padayachi. These petitions were dismissed by this court confirming the orders of the Courts below on the ground that the question of claim to Office as Poojari and the temple properties has to be determined only on a regular suit and not in an execution petition. This suit was filed by the plaintiff after the said order of this Court.

2. The main dispute in this case related to the truth and validity of the gift deed dated 19-3-1920. In the written statement filed by the second defendant it was contended that the gift deed was not executed in accordance with law, that it was brought about by undue influence, and that it was not a gift deed in fact, but it was for consideration. He also contended that the gift deed was invalid in law and the plaintiff could not claim an