text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
By COURT. RPC |
In view of the majority judgment of the Court, we quash the orders passed by the Central Government and direct that the appeals be reheard and disposed of according to law. RPC |
Costs of these appeals will be costs in the appeals before the Central Government. RPC |
Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1958. FAC |
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated February 19, 1953, of the Madras High Court in Second Appeals Nos. FAC |
2120 and 2121 of 1947. FAC |
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. section K. Iyengar, for the appellants. FAC |
K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and M. section K. Sastri, for respondent No. 1A. section V. Venugopalachari and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 8A in Appeal No. 244 and respondent No. 7A in Appeal No. 245. FAC |
April 27. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO, J. FAC |
These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated February 19, 1953, setting aside that of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, and restoring that of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in O. section Nos. 45 and 46 511 of 1945 on his file, and they raise the question of maintainability of ... |
At Alwar Tirunagari in Tirunelveli District there is a famous temple called Athinathalwar temple. FAC |
The presiding deity in the temple is Lord Vishnu. FAC |
Its origin is lost in antiquity. FAC |
In 'the 10th and 11th centuries Vaishnavite saints, called Alwars and Acharyas, who were ardent devotees of Lord Vishnu, worshiped at the temple and sang in praise of the Lord. FAC |
As time passed by, 20 smaller temples were erected to commemorate the lives of Alwar8 and Acharya8. FAC |
Within the compound of the main shrine, there are three minor shrines of Nachiar, Nammalwar, and Garuda; the rest of the smaller shrines are outside the premises of the main temple. FAC |
Each of the said temples has its own manager, archakas and separate endowments; but, presumably because of the fact that the Alwar8 and Acharyas, whose idols are installed in the smaller temples, were originally devotees of Sri Athinathalwar, an interesting and novel practice of mutual and regular exchange of visits be... |
During certain specified occasions in the year, the idols in the minor temples are brought to the main temple for worship; so too, on specific occasions the idol of Athinathalwar is also taken to the minor shrines; such visits being reminiscent of the days when the Alwars and Acharya8 worshiped in the temple of Athinat... |
Sri Ramanujacharya was one of the greatest of the devotees of Lord Vishnu and is well known throughout this vast country as the progenitor of an important school of Indian philosophy. FAC |
He died in the year 1127 A. D. FAC |
In the 13th century a shrine was built in his honour and his idol was installed therein. FAC |
Sri Ramanujacharya is also known as Udayavar or Emberumanar and the shrine built in his dedication is known as Emberumanar temple. FAC |
The manager and archaka of the said temple is known as Emberumanar 512 Jeer. FAC |
Emberumanar temple also is outside the precincts of the temple of Athinathalwar. FAC |
There are also mutual visits between the idol of Emberumanar and the idol of Athinathalwar to each other 's temple. FAC |
The present Emberumanar Jeer is the plaintiff in the suits out of which the appeals have arisen. FAC |
There is a mutt called the Vanamamalai Mutt in the said District and the head of the mutt is known as Vanamamalai Jeer. FAC |
He is a sanyasi held in reverence by Vaishnavites of South India. FAC |
He is the first defendant. FAC |
The heads of the Ahobilam Mutt and the Tirukkurungudi Mutt are the second and third defendants respectively. FAC |
The fourth defendant is the Executive Officer of the temple of Sri Athinathalwar and he was appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. FAC |
The records disclose that, at any rate from the middle of the last century, there have been disputes between the various Jeers and others as regards the order of priority in which certain honours have to be distributed among the said Jeers when they attend the temple of Sri Athinathalwar for worship. FAC |
In the ghoshties (group of worshipers in front of the deity) both on ordinary and special days the said Jeers are shown honours befitting their rank. FAC |
The honours consist of distribution of theertham, thulasi, satari and viniyogam, and a few more similar items. FAC |
Each of the said Jeers is allotted a particular place in the ghoshti and a certain order of precedence is observed inter se between them. FAC |
This order of precedence in the matter of receiving honours has become an unending source of bickering between the religious heads; with the result, the Madras Hindu Religious Endow ments Board, constituted under Act 1 of 1923, with jurisdiction to administer the endowments in the Madras State, had to interfere and set... |
On May 12, 1927, the said Board fixed the order of precedence for honours between the various Jeers to be observed both on ordinary and special days. FAC |
By the said order the Board recognized the Emberumanar Jeer 's right 513 to the honours and perquisites in precedence over the other Jeers on all the days other than Vaikasi festival days, except the 7th day, and as regards the other days of the festival, namely, 1st to 6th and 8th to 10th days, the Board directed that... |
Not satisfied with the said order, the Emberumanar Jeer filed O. section No. 320 of 1933 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, as O. section No. 45 of 1945, against the other Jeers and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, for the... |
Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the Board, by its order dated May 15, 1935, altered the order of precedence giving the Vanamamalai Jeer precedence over the Emberumanar Jeer; and this led to the Emberumanar Jeer filing another suit O. section No. 201 of 1941 in the Court of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, for a... |
This suit was later transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin as O. section No. 46 of 1945, to be tried along with O. section No. 45 of 1945. FAC |
To the suits the Emberumanar Jeer, the Vanamamalai Jeer, the Ahobilam Jeer and the Tirukkurungudi Jeer, and the Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board were made parties. FAC |
These suits have had a chequered career. FAC |
But we shall briefly refer only to those stages of the long drawn litigation which have some bearing on the questions raised in the present appeals. Ratio |
O. section No. 320 of 1933 was finally numbered as O. section No. 66 of 1936 and was disposed of on March 25, 1941, by the District Munsif, Tirunelveli. FAC |
The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no legal right in respect 514 of which he could seek relief in a civil court. RLC |
On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, came to the conclusion that, as the plaintiff had come to court to establish his right of precedence to receive the theertham, etc., as forming part of the emoluments of his office of aradanaikar in the suit temple, the suit could not be dismissed on the preliminar... |
Both the parties preferred appeals to the High Court of Madras and they were numbered as C. M. As. FAC |
Nos. 1 and 155 of 1943; on January 31,1945, Chandrasekara Aiyar, J., dismissed both the appeals. FAC |
The learned Judge propounded alternative theories, and he expressed himself thus: "Of course, before he (plaintiff) can succeed in the suit, the plaintiff has to make out that he being the Aradanaikar and trustee of the Emberumanar temple amounts to his holding an office in the suit temple." The learned Judge agreed wi... |
On remand, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to whom the said suit and the connected suit, being renumbered O. section Nos. 45 and 46 of 1945, were remanded came to the conclusion that the Emberumanar temple was a sub shrine attached to the main temple of Sri Athina thalwar, and that the plaintiff, who was the ... |
He further hold that the privilege of first theertham was attached to the said office as part of its remuneration and, therefore, the suit was one of civil nature falling under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; in that view, having held on the merits that the plaintiff had established his right of precedence, h... |
As many as six appeals were preferred against the decrees in the two suits by the aggrieved parties to the District Court; and the learned District Judge in a common judgment disposed of them on January 23, 1947. FAC |
515 The learned District Judge, on a review of the evidence in the case, held that the institutions were not interdependent or intimately connected in such a way that an office holder of the Emberumanar temple was necessarily an office holder of the Athiiiathalwar temple. RLC |
On that finding, he held that the plaintiff was not an office holder of the Athinathalwar temple and, therefore, he was not entitled to file a suit with regard to his rights of precedence in being given the theertham, etc. RLC |
In the result he allowed the appeals and dismissed both the suits with costs throughout. RLC |
Against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred second appeals to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, being Second Appeals Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1947. FAC |
They were heard by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., who on a reconsideration of the evidence disagreed with the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge and accepted the finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge. RLC |
Not only the learned Judge accepted the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff as the aradanaikar or the archaka of the sub shrine was virtually an office holder in the main temple, he also went further and held that, as one of the theerthakars, the plaintiff could be considered to be the holder of... |
In the result the learned Judge set aside the decree of the District Judge and restored the decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge. RLC |
As leave to appeal to a division bench was not given by the learned Judge, the first defendant, i.e., the Vanamamalai Jeer, in the suits, by special leave, has preferred these appeals against the judgment of the High Court. FAC |
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant, raised before us the following points: (1) A suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to honours in a temple would not lie unless he establishes that he holds an office in the said temple and that the said honours form part of the perquisites ... |
(2) The Courts were not justified in allowing the plaintiff to make out a now case not disclosed in the plaints, namely that the Emberumanar temple was a subordinate shrine of the Athi nathalwar temple and, therefore, the plaintiff was the office holder of the latter temple; assuming that there was justification for th... |
Mr. Rajagopala Sastri, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the plaintiff 's alternative case was not really a new one, but all the relevant facts in support of that case were disclosed in the plaints, and that the finding of the District Judge was not a finding of fact but was either a legal inference f... |
He argued that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant ignores the religious background and ideas of the class of persons with which we are now concerned, and that, if the matter is approached from a correct perspective, as the High Court did, it would be realized that there was such an association between ... |
At the outset it would be convenient and necessary to notice briefly the law pertaining to the maintainability of suits in civil courts in respect of honours in temples. Ratio |
Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure describes the nature of suits which a court has jurisdiction to entertain. Ratio |
It can entertain every suit of a civil nature excepting suits of which its cognizance is 517 either expressly or impliedly barred. Ratio |
As a corollary to this, it follows that a court cannot entertain a suit which is not of a civil nature. Ratio |
Prima facie suits raising questions of religious rites and ceremonies only are not maintainable in a civil court, for they do not deal with legal rights of parties. Ratio |
But the explanation to the section accepting the said undoubted position says that a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a question as to religious rites or ceremonies. Ratio |
It implies two things, namely, (i) a suit for an office is a suit of a civil nature; and (ii) it does not cease to be one even if the said right depends entirely upon a decision of a question as to the religious rites or ceremonies. Ratio |
It implies further that questions as to religious rites or ceremonies cannot independently of such a right form the subject matter of a civil suit. Ratio |
Honours shown or precedence given to religious dignitaries when they attend religious ceremonies in a tem ple cannot be placed on a higher footing than the religious rights or ceremonies, for they are integral part of the said rites or ceremonies in the sense that the said honours are shown to persons partaking in the ... |
Prima facie honours, such as who is to stand in the ghoshti, in what place, who is to get the tulasi, etc., in which order, and similar others, cannot be considered to be part of the remuneration or perquisites attached to an office, for they are only tokens of welcome of an honoured guest within the precincts of a tem... |
One would have thought that it would even be a sacrilege to claim a right of precedence in the presence of the Almighty God, for all go before him as humble devotees to earn his blessings and not to assert their self importance or claim their right to preferential treatment. Ratio |
But a century of case law in that part of the country has recognized certain rights of different grades of devotees and they and their innumerable followers began to cherish them or even to fight for them in criminal and civil courts. Ratio |
This Court, therefore, does not propose to reconsider the 66 518 question of honours on first principles but only will resurvey the law on the subject with a view to ascertain, and if possible to clarify, the legal position. Ratio |
The earliest decision is that in Striman Sadagopa vs Kristna Tatachariyar (1). PRE |
There, the plaintiff was the gurukkal of Sri Ahobilam Mutt and he sued the trustees of Sri Devarajaswami temple at Conjeevaram for damages for injuries done to him by withholding from him certain honours and emoluments and also sought to have his right to such honours and emoluments established for the future. PRE |
Two Schedules were attached to that plaint and they showed inter alia that what was claimed as honours were such as garlands, cocoanuts, prasadams and other paraphernalia attending the ceremonial recitation when the gurukkal visited the temple. PRE |
Scotland, C.J., formulated the legal position thus: ". . . these clearly show that every one of the matters in respect of which the suit is brought is purely a matter of religious and sacred observance in connection with the worship and ceremonials at the pagoda, and is claimed by the plaintiff as a matter of devotiona... |
" Then the learned Chief Justice proceeded to state: "He (the plaintiff) is not officially connected in any way with the management or control of the pagoda, or its property or funds; and the alleged dues of his office have no doubt been owing to the great reverence at one time entertained for his sacredotal rank in th... |
519 This decision, which has stood the test of time, clearly lays down that a suit to enforce the rights of persons holding offices connected with the management and regulation of temples and for honours and emoluments connected therewith would lie in a civil court; but a suit by a plaintiff, who does not hold an offic... |
The principle laid down in this case and restated in subsequent cases has been applied by a division bench of the Madras High Court to a claim for first theertham, etc., in Sri Rungachariar vs Rungasami Buttachar (1). PRE |
That decision was given in an appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs had a hereditary miras right to the offices of Sthalathar, Kutumba First Theertham, Muntrapushpam, Vedaparayanam and Adyapakam from times immemorial in the temple of Sri Parimala Ranga nathaswami at Tiruvilandur, and, by vi... |
The learned Judges, on the evidence, came to the following conclusion: ". . the plaintiffs as hereditary Sthalathars are bound to perform, besides the duties of superintendence attached to their office of Sthalathar, the ceremonial duties of vedaparayanam, etc., and are entitled to receive remuneration for the performa... |
Included in this remuneration is the privilege of first theertham ' from which the plaintiffs are called 'theerthakars". PRE |
Then the learned Judges proceeded to observe: "Taking the findings to be, as we do, that the privilege of the first theertham is attached to the hereditary office of the plaintiffs as a part of the remuneration of the office, the Court must, to protect the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the office, declare what is the ... |
" This decision recognizes that a suit for a declaration of a plaintiff 's right to an office and for the honours, (1) Mad.291, 208.520 such as first theertham, etc., as part of the remuneration will lie in a civil court. Ratio |
Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal vs Elayavalli Sri nivasachariar (1) is a decision relating to honours in Athinathalwar temple itself. PRE |
The plaintiff in that case was a trustee of a temple called Pillalokacharyar 's temple. PRE |
The principal object of the suit was to prevent the first defendant from claiming to be one of the Adhyapaka Mirasidars in the temple of Nammalwar and Adinathar in Alwar Tirunagari. PRE |
It was contended that the first defendant was one of the seven Adhyapaka Mirasidars in the temple and his rank in the ghoshti was just above the plaintiffs. PRE |
Sadasiva Aiyar, J., posed the question raised and gave his answer thereto thus: "The legal question I wish to say something about is whether a suit for the honours mentioned in the second item of the 2nd Schedule to the plaint is maintainable in a Civil Court. PRE |
It is clear that if those honours are not attached to any office in the temple, no such suit could lie. PRE |
The first branch of the question, therefore, is a question of fact, viz., whether these honours are attached to the Adhyapaka Miras office in the temple." PRE |
After considering the evidence and other relevant decisions, the learned Judge came to the following conclusion: "I see no difficulty whatever in holding on the evidence in this case that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the 5 other Adhyapaka Mirasidars get their rank in the Goshti and their rank in the distrib... |
" That would be enough to dispose of that appeal, but the learned Judge proceeded to make certain observations even on the assumption that the said honours (1) , 299, 300, 301. 521 had been attached to emoluments so far as the 7 Adhyapaka Mirasidars were concerned. PRE |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.