Rs.1,500/- @ Rs.500/- p.a. towards 'Kavistharam' service whereas the contention of learned counsel for the defendants is that the plaintiffs were paid their due share of amount and produced Exs.B1 to B5 to establish that the defendant paid 'Dittam' relating to 'Kavistharam' and other collections during Mahasivaratri festivel for the years from 1979 to 1983. The plaintiffs also admitted about receipt of Dittam under Exs.B1 to B5 for the above years. Though the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to claim Rs.1,500/-, their claim is not based on any material. However, the claim of the plaintiffs is based on usage, custom and practice prevailing in the temple but no iota of evidence is brought on record to establish the prevailing custom for payment of any amount other than Rs.500/- p.a. When the defendant established payment of Rs.500/- p.a. by producing Exs.B1 to B5, question of further directing the defendant to render true and correct account of amount collected for performing ritual of 'Kavistharam' does not arise. The trial Court also rightly observed that the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim except to the extent of their entitlement to claim Rs.500/- per year for performing the ritual of 'Kavistharam' in the temple. When I advert to oral evidence on record, though P.W.1 in his examination in chief testified in support of their claim, this contention cannot be accepted in view of payment of share @ Rs.500/- for performing the ritual of 'Kavistharam' in A schedule temple. Therefore, question of again directing the defendant to render true and correct account of the amount payable towards share of the plaintiffs, who performed the ritual of 'Kavistharam' during Mahasivaratri festival, does not arise. Hence, the finding of the trial Court is upheld as I find no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court.
