JUDGMENT

Stuart, J. - This appeal raises some interesting points. It relates to rights to officiate as pujaris at the temple of Sitla at Farahampur Kalesharman. Farahampur Kalesharman is a small place close to Kara in the Allahabad District. Kara is the head quarters of a Tehsil and was once a place of importance. The temple in question is of some antiquity. The learned Munsif who heard the original suit stated in his judgment that according to the Allahabad Gazetteer this temple was four thousand years old. 1 have been unable to trace a quotation that the temple is four thousand years old, but it is referred to at page 87 of the Gazetteer as one of the old temples in the district and it is a place where three fairs are held every year to which a large number of persons go. It is established on the facts that connected with the temple are certain families of mails and it is found on facts that for very many years certain families of malts who are Hindus and certain families of malts who are Muhammadans, have both officiated as pujaris in this temple which is undoubtedly a Hindu temple. The lower Courts have gone on to find that they have so officiated without any real objection being taken either by Hindus or Muhammadans. Apparently Hindu worshippers have in many instances willingly accepted the ministrations of the Muhammadan malis. It is probable (one can only conjecture in matters of this nature) that whoever were the original pujaris of the temple, there were attached to this temple, (as is usually the case) certain families of the malis caste who supplied the flowers for use in the temple, and that as years went on there malis united the functions of pujaris with the functions of malis and that some of them became Muhammadans very likely during the period of the Muhammadan domination of Kara. It would appear that in spite of certain of these malis becoming Muhammadans, they contrived to take their share of the pilgrims offerings and even to officiate in the temple.

2. The findings of the Courts below must be examined carefully. They are, that Muhammadans have taken charge of piligrims who come to the temple; that Muhammadans have received offerings of pilgrims who have come to the temple; that Muhammadans have even performed the ceremonies of laying hands on the pilgrims coming to the temples and that this habit has continued for a very large number of years. Accepting these findings of fact I come to the grounds of appeal.

3. The first ground is that the burden of proof was wrongly laid. There is no force in this. There was no question of burden of proof. Both sides called evidence and the Courts below have arrived at an affirmative finding that the Muhammadan are in the position which I have already stated they are in at present.

4. The next ground taken that temple came into existence before the Muhammadan religion come into existence. On that point it is impossible to arrive at a finding. Tradition would seem to sugest that the temple did come into existence before the Muhammadan religion came into existence but there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

5. The next ground is that the very idea of a non-Hindu entering the consecrated part of a temple is obnoxious to Hindu sentiment and inconsistent with Hindu religion. This ground conflicts with the findings of fact because on the findings of fact the Hindus who attend this temple do not object to Muhammadans performing the functions which they claim the right to perform.

6. The next ground is that any association or mixing up of Muhammadans with Hindus or sharing in the offerings is of no legal consequence and cannot confer any right On the defendants to officiate as priests.

7. Now it must be remembered that main are Shudras. There is very little difference between Kachis, Muraos and Malis and the status of the mail is that of the Kachi. He is a superior Shudra, not an unclean Shudra, a clean Shudra performing clean work and in no way a person to be despised, but n