JUDGMENT Singh, J. - This is a second appeal arising out of a suit for the recovery of certain movables or in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 700 on the allegation that the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 had a Vritti Mahabrahmani right in village Bibipur and on the death of one Shambhu Ratan the offerings made by his relations and received by Defendant No. 2 in collusion with Defendant No. 1 could not be appropriated by them. Defendant No. 1 had denied that he was a party to the receipt of offerings made to Defendant No. 2 and was, therefore, not liable for the return of movables or payment of any money. Defendant No. 2, on the other hand, denied the Plaintiff's right of Vritti Mahabrahmani in village Bibipur and also pleaded that the offerings had been made to him specifically by the widow of Shambhu Ratan and as such the Plaintiff had no right to claim back the movables given to him. The price of the movables claimed by the Plaintiff was also not accepted. 2. The trial Court framed the following three issues: 1. Is the entire village Bibipur in Plaintiff's jajmani, as alleged ? If so, its effect ? 2 Were all the articles in suit given to the Defendants or to any one of them at the Daswan ceremony of Shambhu Ratan deceased ? If so, their market value ? 3. Were the heirs of Shambhu Ratan deceased fee to give the disputed offering to Defendant No. 2 as alleged ? 3. The finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 was that the Plaintiff had no Vritti Jajmani rights in village Bibipur. Issue No. 2 was factual and it was held that all the articles claimed by the Plaintiff had not been given to Defendant No. 2 and that the market value of the articles given to Defendant No. 2 was Rs. 100. On the third issue the finding of the Court was that the heirs of Shambhu Ratan were free to give offerings to Defendant No. 2, as alleged by him. As a result of these findings, the suit was dismissed. 4. The Plaintiff then went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the. As a result of these findings, the suit was dismissed. 4. The Plaintiff then went up in appeal and the learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the. Plaintiff had a Vritti Jajmani right extending over village Bibipur, but he agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the relations of Shambhu Ratan were free to give the offerings voluntarily to anybody and as such the suit was not maintainable. A second appeal was then instituted by the Plaintiff which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who, considering that the question of law involved in this case was of importance, referred it for hearing to a Division Bench. 5. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken great pains in trying to make out the proposition of law that a Vritti Mahabrahmani right is an immovable property which is heritable and transferable. The main point, however, for decision in this appeal is not the nature of the right which is claimed by Mahabrahmans in respect of the performance of ceremonies connected with the death of a person but the individual's right to make the offerings to a person of his own choice in spite of the existence of (sic) Vritti Mahabrahmani right in favour (sic) some other person. In the present case ex(sic)dence was led to prove that Vritti Mahabrahmani rights were available to the Plaintiff and these rights had been inherited(sic) him from his ancestors. Reliance is (sic) on a deed of agreement executed in 1920 by means of which Vritti jajmani rights be longing to the Plaintiff and his ancestors had been partitioned inasmuch as certain months of the year were allotted to one party and the remaining months to another. Even if the Plaintiff had a Vritti Mahabrahmani right in village Bibipur the person who make the a offerings will still have the right to make the offerings to a person of his own choice and it is only when no preference is made by the person who makes the offerings that the right to receive offerings by a particular person under a customary right would arise. In the present case there is clear evidence to prove that the relations of Shambhu Ratan gave the offerings particularly to Defendant No. 2 and this right of the person making the offerings to a person of his own choice has been recognised also in the various rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. In Mst. Sarda Kumar v. Gajanand 1942 A.W.R. (H.C.) 185 the following observation was made by Dar, J.: In our opinion, the right claimed by the Plaintiff is a right in property and the Plaintiff's suit is one of a civil nature and her suit was wrongly dismissed by the learned District Judge and on the findings arrived at by the Court below she is entitled to a decree for declaration of her rights and to an injunction against the Defendants and for recovery of possession of the pilgrims' Bahis. But, though Defendants 1 and 2 are to be restrained by an in junction, it is necessary to specify the correct scope of this injunction. The Defendants cannot be prohibited from working as Purohits nor can they be restrained from accepting any pilgrim coming from Rajgir, Koti, Almora, Kumaun and Naini Tal as their Jajman, provided the Jajman of his own free will with full knowledge of the facts chooses to accept the Defendants as their Panda. But the Defendants cannot be permitted to work under name and colour of the Plaintiff's Birt Jajmani nor can they be permitted to use Bahis, marks and other paraphernalia associated with the Plaintiff's Birt Jajmani. 6. In Gur Prasad v. Gur Prasad 1944 A.W.R. (C.C.) 214 also it was found that there was no evidence to establish that the offerings were made by the Jajman "with any express condition excluding other cc-sharers." These words clearly indicate that there can be no right in a person to claim offerings specifically' made to another person. The same view has been taken in a more recent case In re Mukku Venkatrao. AIR 1954 Mad 346 . 7. It would thus appear that even where a right of Vritti Jajmani or Vritti Mahabrahmani exists the right of an individual to make offerings to a particular person cannot be curtailed or disregarded. The same view has been taken in a more recent case In re Mukku Venkatrao. AIR 1954 Mad 346 . 7. It would thus appear that even where a right of Vritti Jajmani or Vritti Mahabrahmani exists the right of an individual to make offerings to a particular person cannot be curtailed or disregarded. It would always be open to a person to make the offerings to a person of his own choice and it is only if no preference is made by the person making the offerings that the right of a particular person to receive the offerings, under the custom would arise. In this case evidence was led by Defendant No. 2 to show that Gokaran was called by the widow of Shambhu Ratan and offerings were made to him In view of this evidence Defendant No. 2 had a right to receive the offerings and the Plaintiff acquired no title in the anticlass gifted to Defendants No. 2. The appeal was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the lows appellate Court. 8. This appeal is dismissed with costs.