Veeraswami, J.- The correctness of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Manathunainatha Desikar v. Gopala1 as to the applicability of the rule of Tagore case 2is in question in this appeal. There, the learned Judges after examining numerous decisions, concluded:

“It must therefore be taken as settled that the shebaiti office equally with the hereditary office of manager of a South Indian temple is a species of property to which the restrictions enunciated in the Tagore case2 are applicable”.

In view of subsequent decisions, including Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan3 it will be open to question whether this view is tenable any longer. In Narayanan Nambudripad v. The State of Madras4 the learned Chief Justice and Venkatarama Ayyar, J. considered:

“On the same principle the fact that the trustees have no right to participate in the income from the endowment or its emoluments, is not a ground for holding that it is not property for the purpose of Article 19 (1) (f)”.

But this view seems to run counter to the view of the Supreme Court in Shri Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan.3 The question whether a mere right to hereditary trusteeship to which no beneficial inte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document