Judgment.- This is a Civil Revision Petition filed against the decree of the learned District Munsiff of Chodavaram in S.C.Suit No.56 of 1952. The facts are: The plaintiff filed the suit claiming a share of the emoluments received by the defendants for officiating as Purohits at the marriage and other auspicious ceremonies conducted by them in the houses of Vysyas at Kothamalasa Dabalu. The plaintiff as P.W.1 stated that the right to officiate as purohit in the houses of Vysyas at Kothamalasa Dabalu exclusively belonged to him and that nobody else can officiate as such and that he had a right to collect half share of the emoluments collected by the defendants-usurpers and that in fact the defendants have been giving him his share of the emoluments. The defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was only for a share in respect of emoluments paid to purohits on a voluntary basis and that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was wholly false. The learned District Munsiff found as a point of fact that the agreement set up by the plaintiff was not true and as a point of law that the suit in respect of voluntary offerings will not lie. He therefore dismissed the suit and hence this Civil Revision Petition. I am in entire agreement with the learned District Munsiff on both these points. As regards the finding of fact that the agreement set up has not been proved, it is binding on me and cannot be interfered with in revision, apart from the fact that as pointed out by the learned District Munsiff the plaintiff adduced no reliable evidence and that the defendants have adduced reliable evidence that the agreement set up is untrue. Therefore point (1) fails. Point (2): It is well settled that no suit will lie for the recovery of a gratuity or voluntary offering or for damages against any person for failing to make an offering . where there is no duty to make it. Barsati v. Chambu1, Madhusudhan Parvat v. Shri Shankaracharya2, Mayasankar v. Harishankar3, Shankara bin Marabasappa v. Hanma bin Bhima4, Konayamma v. Sri Bashyam Ramaswami5, Krishnaswami v. Krishnamma6, Subraya v. Srinivasa7 and Dhandphala v. Gurav8. where there is no duty to make it. Barsati v. Chambu1, Madhusudhan Parvat v. Shri Shankaracharya2, Mayasankar v. Harishankar3, Shankara bin Marabasappa v. Hanma bin Bhima4, Konayamma v. Sri Bashyam Ramaswami5, Krishnaswami v. Krishnamma6, Subraya v. Srinivasa7 and Dhandphala v. Gurav8. Nor can a person lay claim to the voluntary offerings made to a usurper of his office under circumstances showing, as in the instant case, that the offerings were made to him in his personal capacity as purohit for Mantrams uttered, rituals arranged and blessings given. Sona Dei v. Fakir Chand9, Kashi Chandra Chuckerbutty v. Kalish Chandra Bandopadhya10. But where there is a long and uninterrupted usage or an agreement between the sharers to share the voluntary offerings in a particular manner such usage or agreement can be enforced between them. Ramaswamy Ayyan v. Venkata Achari11, Bheema Charyulu v. Ramanujacharyulu12 and Hira Pandey v. Bachu Pande13. It is only to come within the benefit of this that the agreement mentioned in point (1) was put forward and which on scrutiny failed. The conclusion of the learned District Munsiff is correct and this Civil Revision Petition, devoid of merits, is dismissed. K.C. ----- Petition dismissed.