(1.) These two second appeals arise out of O.S. No. 25 of 1919 and O.S. No. 246 of 1921 on the file of the District Muasif of Conjeeveram which were tried together and raise the question whether alienation of the murai (turn), of one Ekambara Bhattar in the Sthanika office in Sri Ekambaranatha Swami Temple in favour of a female, i.e., the grandmother of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 246 of 1921 is valid.
(2.) The facts are briefly these : The plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1919 alleged that Ekambara Bhattar usufructuarily mortgaged his murai to one Subba Gurukkal in 1863 for Rs. 400, that Subba Gurukkal sub-mortgaged it to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 3; that he as the nearest gnati of Ekambara Bhattar, redeemed the mortgage in 1917 by paying Rs. 400 to the mother of defendant 1; that she put him in possession of the property; that, as the mortgage deed was not returned to him, defendant 4, guardian of defendants 1 to 3, taking advantage of it, leased the murai to defendant 5 as if the mortgage was still subsisting and, that defendant 5 is now trying to disturb his possession. He therefore asked for a declaration that he had redeemed the usufructuary mortgage and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of the murai. The defendants amongst other pleas, raised the contention that Ekambara Bhattar executed a stridhanam deed in 1864 in favour of one Parvati conveying the suit-murai and other properties to her; that, on her death, her daughter Kamakshi inherited it and on Kamakshi's death, her daughters including Manonmani Ammal inherited the murai and that Manonmani Ammal, as the only surviving daughter, is entitled to it exclusively now and that the plaintiff has therefore no right to it. This Manonmani Ammal is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 246 of 1921 and the contesting defendant in that suit- is Sundara Bhattar, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1919. On the main question she raised the same contention as those put forward by the defendants in O.S. No. 25 of 1919. She stated that Ekambara Bhattar had a brother Kumaraswami Bhattar who predeceased him; that he had no issue at all; that Kumaraswami Bhattar had a daughter called Parvati, that Ekambara Bhattar and the widow of Kumaraswami Bhattar gave the suit-murai and other properties as absolute stridhanam to Parvati and that after Parvati's death she, as the sole surviving daughter of Kamakshi, the daughter of Parvati, is entitled to the suit-murai and not defendant 1, i.e., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1919. She also stated that her stridhanam right is valid under the Hindu law as well as according to the custom obtaining in the suit temple.
(3.) It is conceded that, if Manonmani's right to hold the suit-murai cannot be upheld, then the plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1919 is entitled to the relief that he has asked for in his plaint. The right of Manonmani Ammal to hold the suit-murai was raised in issue 9 in O.S. No 25 of 1919 and in a more amplified form in issue 6 and the additional issues 14, 15 and 16 in her own suit, which are as follows: Issue 6. Whether a gift of the stanika micas in favour of a female is not valid? Issue 14. Whether the gift of the plaint-mentioned stanikam miras, which is a religious office, is valid? Issue 15. Whether there is a custom in the community to which the parties belong justifying alienations of the hereditary offices in the plaint temple? Issue 16. Whether such a custom is valid?