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 other items mentioned in schedules B and C. The plaintiff, widow of Gopalacharyulu, and the step-mother of the first defendant, filed O.S. No. 34 of 1945, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram, in forma pauperis, and though she asserted her rights to claim partition in items 2 to 10 of A schedule properties, she confined her relief only to maintenance from and out of the income of the family properties. She claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200 per year for arrears for the period from 1st January, 1940 to 1st January, 1944 and future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 a year in addition to incidental reliefs. The learned Subordinate Judge held that she was entitled to maintenance from the income of the entire A schedule properties and to a share in the houses and sites described in the B schedule properties and also in the C schedule moveables. He awarded maintenance at the rate claimed by the plaintiff both in regard to arrears of maintenance as well as future maintenance. The first defendant preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the lower Court. Pending appeal the plaintiff died and the legatee under the will was brought on record. In view of the supervening event the only question that remains to be considered is the right of the plaintiff to arrears of maintenance.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the archakatvam service inams comprised in item No. 2 to 10 of A schedule would not be property within the meaning of Act XVIII of 1937, and that, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a share in them under the said Act. She would not also be entitled to any maintenance from and out of the income of the said properties as the income was not the family income but only the personal income of the first defendant. The relevant provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 of Act XVIII of 1937, read as follows:

“When a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law dies intestate leaving any property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu Law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property, his widow, or if there is more than one widow all his widows together, shall, subject to the provision’s of sub-section (3), be entitled in respect of property in respect of which he dies intestate to the same share as a son.”

Sub-section (2) of section 3 is as follows:

“When a Hindu governed by any school of Hindu Law other than the Dayabhaga school or by customary law dies.....having at the time of his death an interest in a Hindu joint family property, his widow shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), have in the property the same interest as he himself had.”

Under these provisions a widow would inherit the separate property of the husband and al