K. CHIDAMBARA GURUKKAL AND OTHERS Vs. SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUTTANI, BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in E. P. No. 101 of 1956 in O. S. No. 42 of 1946, who are the Archakas in Sri Subramaniaswami Temple at Tiruttani, are the appellants in this appeal. They filed the suit O. S. No. 42 of 1946 on the file of the Sub -Court, Chittoor, claiming exclusive right to the Archana and Arati fees and for a permanent injunction restraining the Executive Officer from introducing the ticket system. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the Archakas were entitled to the entire Archana and Arati fees and that the Executive Officer had no right to introduce the ticket system. On appeal the District Judge, Chittoor, held that the Archakas had the exclusive right to the Archana and Arati fees but found that the Executive Officer had the right to introduce the ticket system, provided the collections were handed over to the Archakas. The matter was taken up in second appeal to the Andhra High Court and that Court confirmed the decree of the lower appellate Court. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 25th November, 1955. Madras Act XIX of 1951 came into force on 28 th August, 1951. Purporting to act under S. 50 of that Act, the trustees of the temple passed a resolution fixing the fees for Archana and Arati under Ex. A -7. The fee was increased. A portion was reserved for the temple and the share due to the Archakas was increased. The Resolution of the trustees was sanctioned by the Commissioner as provided for in S. 50 of the Act. The E. P. No. 101 of 1956 out of which this appeal arises was filed by the Archakas under O. 21, R. 32, C. P. C., for arrest and detention of the Executive Officer of the Devastanam for disobeying the order of injunction passed by the High Court in second appeal on 25th November, 1955.

(2.) The Courts below held that the Executive Officer was not liable to be punished for contempt and dismissed the execution petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) In this appeal, Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Executive Officer ought to have been committed to prison for contempt as he ignored the order of injunction and took refuge under S. 50 of Act XIX of 1951, and contrary to the decree of injunction, fixed the rates of fees for Archana and Arati, appropriating a portion thereof for the temple. He further submitted that on the date when the judgment in the second appeal was delivered, Madras Act XIX of 1951 had come into force and therefore the decree which was passed after that Act came into force cannot be modified under S. 50 of the Act. He further submitted that even if S. 50 is construed as empowering the trustees of the temple to fix the fees for the performance of Archana, it does not in any way empower them to fix the fee regarding Arati.