RAGHAVA WARRIER Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the appellant, Mr. T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer, his learned counsel, challenges the decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Parur dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff, on a preliminary finding that the suit is not how maintainable without the plaintiff approaching the Government under S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Temple Entry (Removal of Disabilities) Act, XXVII of 1950.

(2.) The various other contentions raised by the parties, and which are the subject matter of the several issues, have not been adjudicated upon by the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) The suit itself was for a declaration that the plaint schedule temples are the private temples belonging to the plaintiff's family and that right of worship in those temples is exclusively confined to the members of the family of the plaintiff and of the Adaat Illom and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, members of the Hindu Community whom they represent, from forcibly entering into the plaint schedule temples and the premises on which they stand and offering worship therein. There are certain other incidental reliefs asked for which I will advert to when I discuss the contentions of the learned counsel on both sides. The main allegations in the plaint are that the suit temples were the private temples of the Adaat Illom and that the plaintiff's" tarwad has acquired full rights in the said temples by virtue of an udampadi executed by the members of the Adaat Illom on 19-12-1113 in favour of one Sankara Warrier, the then karnavan of the plaintiff's tarwad. It is also stated that during the long period that has elapsed, these temples have remained as exclusive places of worship only of the members of the family of the plaintiff and those of the Adaat Iliom.