1. The District Judge does not seem to have appreciated the real questions arising for decision in the case. The lands in question were admittedly granted to certain vritikars to reciting the Vedas in a temple. The inam title-deed, Ex. A, was granted to the Vritikars. It does not appear that the temple had any right of property in the lands. The inam being a conditional one granted by a zamindar and confirmed by the British Government, the right of resumption would be in Government. The trustees did not state how they had any right to take possession of the lands. Again the Judge seems to have assumed that the trustees had the right to dismiss the Vrittikars. We express no opinion on the question whether in the case of such a grant the trustees would have such a ‘right. But the matter was one which should have been tried and could not be decided on any assumption. Again the District Judge has assumed that a minor, a female, and a person unlearned in the Vedas would lose the right to the service in the temple. There is no basis for the assumption. The onus would be on the Dharmakartas to prove any such disqualification. Services in temples are often performed by proxies.
2. Again the Judge did not try the question whether the plaintiffs neglected or refused to have the services properly performed.
3. Further, unless the dharmakarbas could prove their right to take possession of the lands, the plaintiff's suit must succeed, even if they failed to perform the services or forfeited their right to the services, the right of resumption of the inam being prima facie in Government alone. As the case has not been properly tried, we set aside the decree of the lower Court and remand the suit for fresh disposal according to law after recording all the evidence that either party may adduce. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.
S.N/R.K
4. Decree set aside.