JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, C.J. - The claim put forward by the plaintiff is that his is entitled to a share in the house built by his father out of his income as a Pandit, inasmuch as the same work had been carried on by his grand-father and therefore the right to receive such income is a part of the family property. No doubt it has been found that the plaintiff's grand-father was a Brahmin who officiated as a Pandit in the houses of his clients and received some, income and that after his death the plaintiff's father carried on the same work. But the learned Judge has pointed out that his profession consisted of going from house to house for picking up such work as he might come across and for rendering religious ministration to those who wanted it. The mere fact that most of the patrons of the father might have been member of the families which had previously patronised, the grand-father, does, not create any vested interest in the plaintiff's family to force their services upon such patrons. If the right to receive offerings were connected with any and in the occupation or user of the family or with any temple at which they were officiating, the right might possibly be a family property; or again if then were a service which could be rendered even against the will of others, on whom it is to be imposed, it might be claimed as of right. But the income received as amounts paid by people at their discretion either by way of charity or by way of remuneration for personal services rendered, cannot be claimed as of right, and cannot in my opinion, amount to a family property.

2. No doubt in some cases in the Bombay High Court referred to by my learned brother the opinion has been expressed that hereditary priests can force their service's upon members of a caste. It may be that there are some peculiarities in the Customary law of Bombay with which I am not familiar. It is therefore not necessary for me even to suggest that these rulings require reconsideration. But I would certainly say without hestitation that a claim to force one's services as a priest on other families would never be tolerated by the Hindu community, or, for the matter of that by any other community in these provinces. The' income received in such a way must, be treated purely as the personal property of the Pandit concerned and not the property of his joint family. As there is no suggestion that the father had received any special training at the expense of the family, the income received by him cannot be treated as "gains of science," so as to become a joint family property.

3. I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

Mukerji, J.

4. In this case a nice point of law has been, urged, but strictly speaking it does not arise on the facts of the case.

5. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by one of the four sons of defendant 1, Harmandil Pathak, for partition of family property. The plaintiff claimed a fifth-share, which would be his if there was no mother alive. The question that was in dispute between the parties in the Court of first instance and in the lower appellate Court was which of the properties in suit were ancestral and which were the self acquired property of Harmandil Pathak, the father. The Court of first instance decided that all the properties were joint family properties and accordingly a fifth share was allowed to the plaintiff. On appeal the learned District Judge held that two of the items, which were acquired in 1919 and 1924, were the self acquired properties of the father, and the plaintiff could not share in them. The plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

6. It appears that Harmandil carries on the profession of a priest and so did his father, Binda Pathak. It is urged by Mr. Malik on behalf of the plaintiff that Binda Pathak and Harmandil Pathak were "family priests" within the meaning of some Bombay rulings which I shall mention later on; that the profession they followed was in the nature of an immovable property; t