The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that offerings made to hereditary temple priests are considered personal income rather than joint family wealth. This decision implies that any property acquired with this income will also be deemed personal property and not part of the joint family estate. The case, Rajamati v Leelavathi, was presided over by Justices R Nataraj and Tyagaraja N Inavally, who made this determination while addressing a family dispute over the property purchased with the earnings of a deceased Hindu priest.
“If an individual dedicates himself to the service of the deity, and devotees show respect through cash or kind offerings, such offerings are a recognition of his service and should be considered personal income,” the court stated.
However, the court also clarified that not all offerings made by devotees at a temple are personal to the priest. In cases where a trust administers the temple, offerings made to the temple are to be deposited into the trust’s accounts. In such scenarios, these cannot be treated as the priest’s personal income. The court specified that only offerings directly placed before the priest, such as those made during the mangalarathi (a ritual where the priest carries a plate to collect offerings after temple worship), can be retained by the priest personally.
The case revolved around the income of Kasturichand, a hereditary archak (priest) at the Padmavathi Jain Mandir in Hunsi Hadgil. His daughters claimed that the properties acquired in the names of Kasturichand’s son and daughter-in-law were joint family assets. They argued their father had used the income from his priestly duties to purchase these properties.
In 2005, the daughters filed a suit seeking partition against their brother’s widow and children, claiming a share in the property. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the daughters, granting them a one-third share of the properties left by Kasturichand, including agricultural land.
More Read
However, upon appeal, the High Court overturned this decision, finding that the trial court had incorrectly classified the priest’s earnings as joint family income. According to the court, offerings made in recognition of the priest’s religious expertise and services are considered personal income under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930. As such, these cannot be considered part of the family’s collective wealth.
As a result, the daughters could not claim any property purchased by Kasturichand using his personal earnings, including those from his priestly duties, in the names of his son and daughter-in-law. Nevertheless, the daughters were entitled to a one-third share in another property at Nellur village owned by Kasturichand at the time of his death.
The court further ruled that the daughters had no claim to the land on which the Padmavathi Jain temple stands, stating, “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.” Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court’s order and partially allowed the appeal.
More Read
Advocate BD Hangarki represented Kasturichand’s daughter-in-law and granddaughters (the appellants), and Advocate DP Ambekar represented one of the daughters and the legal representatives of the other deceased daughter.
