The main legal point established in the judgment is that the succession to temple offices is governed by user, and a person incompetent to perform the duties of a religious office cannot inherit the office.

Wallis, C.J.

1. It is well settled that the succession to temple offices is governed by user which is taken to represent the intentions of the founder, and it is not disputed that in this part of India the user in the case of temple archakas is that the office is hereditary and descends in the ordinary course of succession to women who are not themselves competent to perform the duties of the office by ministering in the temple and perfom them by deputy. The opinion of the pandits in 1853 in M.S.D.A. 261 shows that this was then the recognised usage. The question appears to have first come before the Court in 1910, but since that time there have been numerous decisions where the user has been recognised and enforced, and all the Hindu members of the Court with one exception have been parties to these decisions which also are conformable with the decisions of other High Courts. The only authority the other way is the judgment of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in Sundarambal Animal v. Yogavana Gurukkal (1914) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 850 who considered that on principle a personally disqualified heir could not inherit the office and delegate the duties to others. In the argument before us it was again contended that the decision of the Privy Council in Mohan Lalji v. Gordhan Lalji Maharaj (1912) I.L.R. 35 All. 283 was in accordance with this view and must be taken to have overruled the other cases. In that case the office of archaka had descended to the widow and daughter of the last male archaka, and the question was whether the daughter was to be succeeded by her son or by the reversioner of the last male holder. The Archakas were gossains and there was a usage among them that females continued to belong to their farthers kul or family after marriage. On this ground apparently the daughter had been allowed to fill the office even though married to a member of the Bhat community who was incapable of filling it. No question arose in that case as to the right of the widow and her daughter after her to fill the office; and it does not appear whether while they held it they performed the duties in person or by deputy. What their Lordships had to consider was, whether on the daughters death the office should go to her son and her descendants a line of heirs who as Bhats would be incapable of performing its duties, or should revert to the male heirs of the last male holder. Their Lordships at p. 288 observe that the rule as to the shebaitship being vested in the heirs of the founder "must from the very nature of the right, be subject to the condition that the devolution in the ordinary line of descent is not inconsistent with or opposed to the purpose the founder had in view in establishing the worship and they say later on, that "to allow the plaintiffs claim to an admittedly Ballav temple when the rights are performed according to Ballav ritual, which it is clearly established they cannot perform, would in their Lordships judgment, defeat the purpose for which the worship was established." A contrary decision would have involved the devolution of the office to a line of heirs incompetent to perform its duties. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim in that case was not shown to be in accordance with any well recognised user which is the best evidence of the founders intentions. I do not consider that this decision of their Lordships warrants us in overruling the numerous decisions of this Court in conformity with the decisions of other Courts by which the widow and daughter of the last male archaka are held entitled in accordance with the established user to succeed to the office of archaka discharging its duties by deputy and to transmit it to their heirs, who as male heirs are preferred to female, will generally be competent to perform the duties in person. Sadasiva Aiyar, J., for whose opinion I have a great respect, considers, if I rightly understand him, that the established custom of female succession to this office is of so mischievous and object