Subba Rao, J.-This appeal raises an interesting point of law, namely, whether the right to Archakatvam service is property within the meaning of Act XVIII of 1937, and whether from and out of the family income of such property a maintenance holder is entitled to be maintained. The plaintiff’s husband one, Gopalacharyulu, was the hereditary archaka of Sri Madanagopalaswami Varu, enshrined in the village of Podagatlapalli and of Sri Venkateswaraswami Varu and Sri Kothandaramaswami Varu enshrined in the village of Vedireswaram. An extent of 32 acres and 75 cents comprised in items 2 to 10 of a schedule annexed to the plaint was in the enjoyment of the said Gopalacharyulu as Archaka service inam. Gopalacharyulu died on 1st January, 1940. The first defendant is his undivided son and the second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. On the death of Gopalacharyulu the first defendant has been enjoying the said archaka service inam and rendering archakatvam service personally in the temples of Venkateswaraswami and Kothandaramaswami and, through a deputy, in the temple of Madanagopalaswami Varu. In addition he also died possessed of item No. 1 in A schedule and othe