Judgment O. P. Saxena, J. 1. THIS second appeal arises against the judgment and decree dated 24th August 1968 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad, exercising powers of Civil Judge and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 531 of 1966 filed by the defendants appellant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Original suit No. 351 of 1957. 2. ONE Ambika Prasad filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendents from performing Puja and other ceremonies at the temple claiming themselves to be Brahmans. There is an old temple of Goddess Shitla Devi in village Farhampur. There is a Havan kund near the temple. People from far off come to the temple for Darshan and Puja. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are Malis. They are entitled to the offering made at the temple. After a visit to the temple the people go to Havan kund where Satnarain Ki Katha, Shitlashtan, Durga Shabdsadi, etc. are peformed. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendant No. 6 are entitled to perfrorm these Pujas by virtue of being Brahmans and also on account of the fact that they have been doing it since the time of their ancestors. The suit was filed as defendant started interfering with the plaintiff's exclusive right of performing these Pujas. The plaintiff also claimed damages. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that they have been actually functioning as priests and Pandas not only with respect to offerings, but also with respect to Pujas referred to above. The exclusive right claimed by plaintiff was denied. 3. AMBIKA Prasad died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on the record. 4. IN the additional written statement, it was said that in view of the custom prevalent, the plaintiffs are not competent to perform the Pujas as they are ladies. The right of Smt. Chandan Kunwar, as a widow, to continue the suit was also challenged. The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and damages with costs. 5. THE lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal with costs. 6. The right of Smt. Chandan Kunwar, as a widow, to continue the suit was also challenged. The trial court upheld the plaintiff's claim and decreed the suit for permanent injunction and damages with costs. 5. THE lower appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal with costs. 6. THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit filed by Ambika Prasad and later on continued by his widow Smt. Chandan Kunwar and others could not be decreed after the enforcement of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance on Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution which confers a fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It was submitted that it was not open for Ambika Prasad to say that he and defendant No. 6 alone were entitled to perform the Puja on account of their being Brahmans and also on account of their having been doing so since the time of their ancestors. He could not further say that defendant Nos. 1 to 5 have no right to perform the Puja. Under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, the defendants have a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation. THEy have been performing the Pujas and the plaintiffs cannot restrain them. In the case of Gopal Rao v. War Nasi, AIR 1953 Hyderabad 1, Full Bench held as below : - "No suit for a declaration of a right to perform 'purohitgiri' in a particular village to the exclusion of others can lie. Whatever might have been the trend of the decisions of the Courts in India or in Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the Constitution, such a suit after the 26th of January 1950, would clearly offend Art, 19 (g) of the Constitution, for among the fundamental rights conferred by the Constitution the right to practise freely any profession or to take up any calling without any hindrance, is one which has to be protected. If the Court were to give a decree in favour of an individual declaring him alone to be entitled to practise the profession of 'purohitgiri' to the exclusion of others, it would amount to laying a restraint upon the others to carry on the same profession in the village. If the Court were to give a decree in favour of an individual declaring him alone to be entitled to practise the profession of 'purohitgiri' to the exclusion of others, it would amount to laying a restraint upon the others to carry on the same profession in the village. It would decidedly offend the fundemental rights and as such cannot be countenanced." 7. IN the case of Manirarn v. pannalal, AIR 1962 MP 275, it was held : "A custom of a village giving exclusive right to the plaintiffs belonging to the chamar caste to take the carcasses of the animals dying in the village runs counter to the fundamental right of the villagers whose cattle die to dispose of the carcasses as their property to any body they choose. It further runs counter to the rights of others to carry on profession of taking carcasses of the cattle and utilize them for the purpose of any trade. As the custom runs counter to the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g), the custom is void." It was further held :- "Even if the plaintiffs under the customs had a right which might have been of a civil nature the same has become unenforceable and void after the Constitution since the custom on which it was based has become bad." None has appeared for the plaintiffs-respondents. 8. THE record of this case has been burnt in a fire in the Record Room of Allahabad Judgeship. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the judgments of the court below. 9. IN the case of Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja, AIR 1961 SC 1720 it was held:- "The principles of law deducible from decided cases pertaining to the maintainability of suits in civil Courts in respect of honours in temples may be summaiized as follows : (1) A suit for a declaration of religious honours and privileges simpliciter will not lie in a civil court. (2) But a suit to establish one's right to an office in a temple and to honours and privileges attached to the said office as its remuneration or perquisites is maintainable in a civil court. (3). (2) But a suit to establish one's right to an office in a temple and to honours and privileges attached to the said office as its remuneration or perquisites is maintainable in a civil court. (3). The essential condition for the existence of an office is that the holder of the alleged office shall be under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the said office and for the non-observance of which he may be visited with penalties. (4) So judged, there cannot be an independent office of theerthakar, for a theerthakar has no obligatory duties to perform ; nor can there be an office of arulipad ; the said word only can notes that the names of the theerthakars are called out by the archaka in a certain order. (5) Even if theertham is given or other honours are shown in particular order to a person holding an office, it does not necessarily follow that the said honours are part of the foundation attached to the office ; but it is a question of fact to be ascertained on the evidence whether the said honours are attached to the office as a part of its perquisities in the sense that they have become an integral part of the ritual to be performed by the recipient as the office holder or are only shown to him as a mark of respect on the occasion of his visit to the temple." 10. IT appears that people come to the temple of Shitla Devi for making obeisance to the deity. They make offerings there. Then they go to the Hawan Kund in the same premises. They make offerings there also. They also get Pujas performed. There is no dispute that the defendants who are Malis, receive the offerings both at the temple and the Havan Kund. 11. PLAINTIFF has claimed right in a personal capacity and not in a representative capacity. The declaration that plaintiff and defendant No. 6, to the exclusion of defendants, are entitled to get the puja performed, is a suit for religious honours and previleges simpliciter and is not maintainable. See Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja (supra). 12. APART from this, we are pledged to build a state where all are equal, irrespective of caste, creed or community. Brahmans had many privileges in the society on account of being of high caste. See Sinha Ramanuja v. Ranga Ramanuja (supra). 12. APART from this, we are pledged to build a state where all are equal, irrespective of caste, creed or community. Brahmans had many privileges in the society on account of being of high caste. With the wind of social change, things are changing swiftly. The high caste people are coming out of that narrower grooves and are participating in other national activities. They are adopting numerous other vocations and professions besides the purohitgiri. The low caste people are also rubbing shoulders with them in the multifarious activities of the nation. It is admitted that the defendants began getting the pujas done and receiving the charges. It is obvious that the people who get the pujas performed have no objection to the pujas being performed by the defendants who are Malis. The relief sought by the plaintiff would amount to an infringement of Article 9 (1) (g) of the Constitution. As held in the case of Gopai Rao v. War Nasi (Supra), such suit does not lie. Both the courts below have been obsessed by the fact that plaintiff was a Brahman and defendants are Malis. From the evidence that people get pujas performed at the Havan Kund, it has been inferred that Brahmans must have been doing so. The courts ignored that the cause of action for the suit was that defendants began getting pujas performed and receiving charges. They could not do so unless people were agreeable to this. The lower appellate court erred in holding that the dispute is regarding right to property which consists of voluntary offerings made at the deity and Havan Kund. In the alternative it held that the dispute is regarding right to worship. There is no such dispute. The dispute is regarding a right of purohitgiri for getting pujas done by the devotees at the Havan Kund and such a suit did not lie. 13. THE Second Appeal is allowed. Judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are set aside. THE suit is dismissed. THE costs shall be throughout easy. Appeal allowed.