KANAKKU SHANMUGHOM PILLAI Vs. CHITHAMBARATHANU MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants. THE plaintiff stated that his family had settled down in Azhakiapandipuram over 700 years ago, that it enjoyed a prestige and place in the local community, that when the image of veeravara Nanka Amman of the temple there was taken out on procession at the time of festival it was usual to give a member of the plaintiff's family Pavada prasadam (]mhms {]kmzw) consisting of three beetle leaves, one arecanut, one cocoanut and three plantain fruits when the procession reached the northern gate, that the trustees were bound to give the same and the plaintiff's family was entitled to get it, that this was the practice from time immemorial, that during the procession on 21. 10. 1116, the defendants who were the trustees of that temple declined to give the prasadam to the plaintiff, that this caused mental agony to the members of the family, and that the plaintiff was entitled to get a declaration of the right to receive this prasadam. He also claimed Rs. 200/- on account of damages for mental agony. THE defendants denied the privilege claimed by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE trial court found that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the same. In the lower appellate court the plaintiff had given up the right for damages and pressed the reliefs for a declaration of his right to get the prasadam. THE lower appellate court accepted the appeal and gave the plaintiff the declaration as prayed for. THE appellants before this court contended that the suit was not for a right to property or to an office, and so it was not a suit of a civil nature, and hence not maintainable. S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was relied in support of this contention. What the plaintiff claimed was a right to get prasadam when the deity was taken in procession outside the temple as could be seen from the ground alleged by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the plaint which ran thus: THE right to receive the prasadam was therefore a dignity said to be attached to the family because of its standing in the locality. It is not because of any office rendered or to be rendered by the plaintiff's family. Suits for vindication of a mere dignity attached to an office are not suits of a civil nature. It has been held in Sri Sankar v. Sidha, reported at page 198 in 3 MIA that a claim by a Swami (arch-priest) that he is entitled to be carried on the high road of a town or village in a palanquin on ceremonial occasions will not be entertained by a civil court. What was claimed by the plaintiff in that case was a mere mark of honour appended to the office of a swami. THE principles governing the decision in suits of this kind are enumerated at page 25 of Mulla's treatise on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1953 edition. Thus the duty of individuals to submit to and perform certain religious observances in accordance with the ritual or conventional practices of their race or sect is, in the absence of express legal recognition and provision, an imperfect obligation of a moral and not a civil nature. Of such obligations the present civil courts cannot take cognizance. Following this rule, the courts have declined to entertain claims made by holders of religious office to precedence in worship, such as a claim to be the first to worship the deity and to receive gifts of rice and cocoanuts on certain public religious ceremonies. THEy have likewise declined to decide disputes as to precedence or privilege between purely religious functionaries. It is important to note that the suit in such of the above cases was not to establish, a right to an office, but for a declaration that the plaintiff was, by virtue of his office, entitled to certain tokens of dignity or to votive offerings. In other words, the suit was not for a claim to an office but to vindicate an alleged dignity attached to an office. A suit for an office is of a civil nature, but a suit for vindication of a mere dignity though, connected with an office, is not.