- (1.)The plaintiff is the widow of a divided brother of defendant 1. The plaintiff's deceased husband and defendant 1 were gurus who offered spiritual advice and ministrations to a large number of persons. Though divided the plaintiff's late husband and defendant 1 had joint disciples. The plaintiff alleged a family custom that if one guru dies his widow should continue to enjoy a half-share of the offerings (technically called sishyadayam) made by joint disciples and collected by the other guru. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover her portion of the offerings said to have been collected by defendant 1 basing her right on the alleged family custom. Defendant 1 contended that the offerings made by the sishyas do not form heritable property and that he had not made any collections. The District Munsif held that the alleged customs were proved, but was of opinion that the offerings were not heritable property, that they were not made to defendant 1 for the plaintiff also, and that there was no evidence for ,the plaintiff regarding the amount collected by defendant 1. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the sishyadayam said to have been collected by defendant 1. On appeal the learned District Judge, without giving a definite finding on the question of custom affirmed the judgment of the District Munsif stating that the plaintiff. cannot succeed in enforcing her right in a, Court of law against defendant 1 for her share in the family offering.
(2.)Before finally disposing of the case we called for a finding from the lower Court as regards the existence of the alleged custom. The learned District Judge has now found that the custom has not been proved. He has also found that the offerings received by defendant 1 each year amount to Rs. 70. On these findings two questions have been argued before us: (1) That there is ample evidence to prove the existence of the alleged family custom; and (2) that even if the custom is proved a suit to recover a share of the offerings is not maintainable in a Court of law.
(3.)As regards the existence of the custom alleged, we think the finding of the learned District Judge cannot be supported. The plaintiff has given documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the custom. Ex. B dated 29 July 1876 has not been correctly understood by the learned District Judge. That document evidences a transfer by a widow called Lakshminarasamma Ammavaru of her right to receive sishyadayam. The transferee under Ex. B in his turn transfers under Ex. C his share of the income derived under Ex. B. P.W. 2 says that it is the custom of the widow to get the husband's right of collecting offering from sishyas. It is important to notice that defendant 1 has not anywhere definitely denied the existence of the custom. It is also admitted that the plaintiff may, if she chooses to do so, herself collect the offerings from her disciples. We agree with the Munsif's view that the evidence proves the existence of the alleged custom.