Offerings By Devotees To Hereditary Temple Priest In Arati Tray Is His Personal Income, Not Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

The Kalaburgi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the offerings made by devotees to a hereditary archak (temple priest) in the mangalarathi (prayer ritual) plate constitute his individual income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, and do not form part of a joint family nucleus.

“The offerings made by the devotees to the archak is the remuneration that he receives for leading a pious life and as a token of respect for his vidwath in agama shastra, mastery over kriyas, kainkaryas, memorizing hymns, mantras, rituals and understanding the relevant religious texts and reciting them appropriately and invoke the blessings of God etc,” the Division Bench of Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally observed.

“These offerings are therefore in recognition of the learning of the person and hence, are deemed to be his own income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 and not the income of the joint family,” the Court added.

The Court also drew a distinction between the offerings made to the temple and those to the priest, stating, “Therefore, any offering by the devotees to the temple cannot become the income of the priest but on the contrary would be accounted by the Trust. The only offering that a priest is entitled to take home is the offering made by the devotees in the mangalarathi plate.”

On the contention whether offerings made by the devotees in the mangalarathi plate could be construed as income of the joint family, the court observed that the temple priest's family members may or may not undertake the duties of a hereditary archak.

"He may, instead, pursue any other avocation or could be a freelancing archak performing religious rites for others outside his family. In that event, any earning from such freelancing or avocation would be his own earning. If such person, in deference to the traditions in the family, endows himself in the service of the deity and devotees show obeisance to him by offering cash or in kind, then such offerings would be in recognition of the man's service and hence, should be construed as his individual income," the court said. 

The case arose from a partition suit filed by the daughters of late Kasturichand, who inherited the archakship (priesthood) at Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir in Hunsi Hadgil. The plaintiffs claimed a share in three categories of properties—those purchased by Kasturischand in his own name, those in the name of his son Chamalrao and his daughter-in-law (first defendant), and those held by the daughter-in-law's brother.

The plaintiffs argued that the right to worship, inherited by Kasturichand from his ancestors, belonged to the entire joint family. Thus, the daughters claimed a share in the properties, which they claimed were purchased out of the income generated from the hereditary right.

The Trial Court had partly decreed the suit, allowing partition of the properties, including those in the names of the son and daughter-in-law. Aggrieved by this, the first defendant and her two daughters approached the High Court in appeal.

In the present case, the High Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in Lakshmi Chand Khajuria and others vs. Ishroo Devi (1977) wherein the Apex Court observed, “The income from the practice of a hereditary profession will not be joint family property.”

Accordingly, the High Court held, “Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the income earned by Sri. Kasturichand as a hereditary archak in Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir was his individual and personal income and not the income of the joint family.”

The Bench noted that any property purchased out of the personal earnings of the priest in the name of other family members would be construed as the self-acquired property of those relatives and would not constitute joint family property.

“As these purchases were made out of the personal income of Sri. Kasturichand, the acquisition in the name of Sri. Chamalrao and the defendant No.1 cannot be construed as properties of the joint family. Therefore, they are the self acquisition of Sri. Chamalrao and the defendant No.1 where the plaintiffs have no share,” the Court held.

The Court also took into account the plaintiffs' delay in claiming their share of the properties, as Kasturichand had died in 1982 whereas Chamalrao in 1986. This delay indicated that the plaintiffs were aware that the properties were independent self-acquisitions, the Court observed.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to one-third share each in the non-temple land acquired by Kasturichand in his own name. Regarding the land where temple stands, the Court held, “As long as Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir exists on Sy.No.6 of Hunsi Hadgil, the plaintiffs shall not be entitled to any share in the said survey number.”

Case: RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200037 OF 2014 (PAR/POS)

Click Here To Read/Download Order