1. Though the decree in O.S. No. 727 of 1858 may not be res judicata, we are of opinion that the razaenamah is strong evidence of the hereditary rights of the plaintiff therein to the office.
2. We are not prepared, therefore, to interfere with the finding on that question.
3. It is then contended that the plaintiff claims as an alienee and that the alienation in his favour by his mother-in-law is invalid.
4. The plaintiff's mother-in-law is the holder of the office, and she has no sons. She accordingly executed an adalti mokhtiar, on which the plaintiff's right is based, in his favour to perform the ceremonies as she herself could not perform them and to carry out the other duties of the office.
5. The Judge states that she could not perform the duties of the office herself. It is not contended before us that he is wrong. We see, therefore, nothing improper or illegal in the appointment of the plaintiff as a manager. As an alienation to continue in force beyond the life-time of the mother-in-law, it may be invalid. But we think that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce his rights as manager under the document against the defendant who denies that right.
6. For the sake of clearness, we will modify the decrees of the lower Courts by adding the words 'as manager for Venkamma' after the words 'the plaintiff is entitled'.
7. The second appeal is otherwise dismissed with costs.
8. The memo, of objections is also dismissed with costs.