Offerings Made To Hereditary Priest Are His Individual Income, Not Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court
The plaintiffs had contended that the priesthood at the temple was held hereditarily by their forefathers and that the income generated from the right to worship should enure to all members of the joint family.
The Karnataka High Court has held that income earned by a person as a hereditary archak in a temple is his individual and personal income and not the income of the joint family.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally held, "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 was considering whether properties purchased in the name of Sri. Chamalrao and the defendant No.1 were acquired out of the joint family nucleus and whether income earned by Sri. Kasturichand as a hereditary archak at Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir could be treated as income of the joint family.
Advocate B.D. Hangarki appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate D.P. Ambekar appeared for the respondents.
The plaintiffs had contended that the priesthood at the temple was held hereditarily by their forefathers and that the income generated from the right to worship should enure to all members of the joint family. They claimed that properties purchased in the name of Sri. Chamalrao and defendant No.1 were acquired out of such income.
The High Court rejected the contention.
The Bench noted that there was a tradition in the family that a male member should perform the duties of an archak and that Sri. Kasturichand was performing those duties. However, the Court found that there was nothing to show that he was earning Rs.4,00,000/- per annum from the temple.
The Court further noted that a Trust had been created to administer Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir. Therefore, offerings made by devotees to the temple could not become the income of the priest and would be accounted for by the Trust. The only offering that a priest was entitled to take home was the offering made by devotees in the mangalarathi plate.
The Bench held that offerings made to an archak are remuneration received for leading a pious life and as a token of respect for his learning in agama shastra, mastery over kriyas and kainkaryas, memorizing hymns and mantras, rituals and understanding and reciting relevant religious texts.
“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 held.
The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Lakshmi Chand Khajuria and others vs. Ishroo Devi, which held that “the income from the practice of a hereditary profession will not be joint family property.”
Accordingly, the High Court held that 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 Court also held that there was no cogent evidence to establish that Sri. Kasturichand had purchased the properties in the names of Sri. Chamalrao and defendant No.1 out of the income of the joint family.
The Bench noted that Sy.No.23/3 was purchased in the name of Sri. Chamalrao in 1965 when he was 22 years old and had no known source of income. Sy.No.93 was purchased in his name in 1972, while Sy.No.19/1 was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 in 1979 when she was 21 years old.
The Court held that these purchases were made out of the personal income of Sri. Kasturichand and that the acquisition in the names of Sri. Chamalrao and defendant No.1 could not be construed as properties of the joint family.
“They are the self acquisition of Sri. Chamalrao and the defendant No.1 where the plaintiffs have no share,” the Court held.
The High Court, however, modified the Trial Court decree and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share each in Sy.No.94/3 of Nellur village, as the property stood in the name of Sri. Kasturichand and he died intestate.
As regards Sy.No.6 of Hunsi Hadgil, where Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir is situated, the Court held that the plaintiffs would not be entitled to any share “as long as Goddess Padmavathi Jain Mandir exists” on the survey number.
The Court also clarified that it had not given any finding that defendant No.1 was entitled to perform the duties of archak through her son-in-law. That issue was kept open for consideration in appropriate proceedings.
The appeal was accordingly allowed in part, and the judgment and decree of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gulbarga, were modified.
Cause Title: Rajamati & Ors. v. Leelavathi & Ors., [2026:KHC-K:8754-DB]