SAMBA NATARAJA DIKSHITAR Vs. KALYANASABESA DIKSHITAR, THE PRESENT SECRETARY TO THE PODU DIKSHITARS OF SRI SABHANAYAGAR DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff who has failed in both the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal and the only question that falls for determination is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question. The short facts are: The plaintiff is one of the Podu Deekshidars of Sri Sabanayakar Temple, Chidambaram, and the suit is for a declaration that he is entitled to all the duties of his office in the above temple and to receive the emoluments therefore and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and the Podu Deekshidars from interfering with his performance of the duties of his office. The defendant has been impleaded as the Secretary of the Podu Deekshidars of the temple and as representing the temple and its Podu Deekshidars. The cause of action for the suit arose when on the failure of the plaintiff to keep a newly introduced "Kaval Morai" (temple watch turn); he was fined and on failure to pay the fine amount the next day his rights in the temple as Podu Deekshidars for the vattam were auctioned away and sold to one Chandrasekhara Deekshidar, another Podu Deekshidar. The temple at Chidambaram and the wordship therein and the status of the Podu Deekshidars have been the subject of discussion and consideration in Natesa v. Ganapathi, I.L.R. (1981) Mad. 103 and in Marimuthu Dikshidar v. State of Madras W.P. Nos. 379 and 380 of 1951, decided along with Sri Shirur Matt v. Commissioner, H.R.E. Board, (1952) 1 M.L.J. 557. As will be seen from these decisions, the management of the temple is vested in the body of Dikshidars. The Dikshidars combine in themselves the functions of trustees as well as Archakas. They have no inams and they have to devote their time exclusively to look after the affairs of the temple and carry on the worship in it by an internal arrangement entered into between themselves over a century ago, as evidenced by the rules framed by them. These Dikshidars are prohibited from taking up any other avocation and of necessity they have to depend upon for their livelihood on what they receive at the temple either as Dakkshina or other offerings made to the deity. As pointed out by this Court in Sri Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner, H.R.E. Board, (1952) 1 M.L.J. 557, they are bound up with the temple and service to God is the only source of their livelihood. The rules framed by these Dikshidars who are Dharmakarthas and Archakas provide for custody of the properties, turns of worship, etc. The rules governing them are exhibited in the present case as Exhibits A -2 and B -4. The rules also cover the administration of the temple by the Podu Dikshitars. There is also a scheme framed under Madras Act II of 1927 for the better administration of the temple. The Dishidars are generally on duty in the temple 20 at a time, each batch of 20 staying on duty for 20 days. There are six turns of service provided for Puja Morai, Padukkai Morai, Asthandra Morai, Maniyam Morai, Committee Morai and Vahana Mandapa Morai. Morai lists are prepared and put up by reference to which the Dishidars take up their Morais and attend to the duties. At the beginning of each period of 20 days called Vattam, the lists containing the various turns of the turn holders are published on the notice board of the temple. The Padukkai Morai consists of five persons for five days. Their duties are to keep watch and ward in the principal shrine of Sri Nataraja during nights and in the day time to perform Archanas for such pilgrims as may come. In addition to this, the watch and ward duty has to be performed by the Poofai Moraikars, 20 in number, for 4 days in each of the Sannidhanams. Thus there would be generally 25 turn holders safeguarding the temple. In addition, two Dikshidars have to see to the safety of the Vahanams and the temple vessels. They are called Vahanamandapa Moraikars. This system of safeguarding the shrine and its properties has been in vogue for several decades. The rules of the temple are contained in rule books and resolutions of the general body made from time to time. While as Podu Dikshidars they constitute a body of trustees of the temple, when they act as Archakas they will be servants of the trustees, that is, then they carry out their obligations to the temple, and are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the body of trustees.

(2.) IT so happened that in Arpasi, 1958, there was theft of gold plates in three stoopies of the Kanakasabai adjacent to Sanctum Sanctorum. Thereupon a general body meeting of the Podu Dikshidars was convened on 26th October, 1958, and a resolution was passed at the meeting that another set of 21 Dikshidars must guard the temple and prevent thefts. The resolution was later amended on 10th November, 1958, at another general body and in accordance with this resolution it was resolved that 8 Dikshidars should do "Kaval Morai" by turn from 12 noon to 5 P.M. and from 10 -30 P.M. to 6 A.M. from the topmost terrace of the temple to prevent thefts. There can be no two views that the introduction of the Kaval Morai was in the best interests of the temple and bona fide made by the Dikshidars who attended the general body meeting. Nor is it questioned that the general body of the Dikshidars has power to make new rules. The plaintiff herein was given intimation of his turn in the Kaval Morai which fell on 3rd December, 1958 and 4th December, 1958 according to usage. While other persons received notice of their turns, the plaintiff refused to receive the notice and he was fined Rs. 10. The fine was not paid immediately in terms of the rules and there was a default fine of Rs. 23 -8 -0 payable on or before 5th December, 1958. The plaintiff paid these fine amounts under protest and it is stated that he went up in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments. The plaintiff's next turn came on 20th January, 1959 and 21st January, 1959. He failed to discharge his duties on these two days and he was again fined Rs. 10 per each day. The fine amounts were not paid and so they were enhanced by 25 per cent. The plaintiff still did not pay the fine amounts. Thereafter in accordance with the usage on 22nd January, 1959, the plaintiff's rights as Dikshidar were put up in auction among the Dikshidars, as already stated. It is thereupon the plaintiff came up with the suit challenging the validity of the new Kaval Morai and the consequential absence of jurisdiction to fine him and put up his rights as a Dikshidar in auction for realisation of the fine amount.

(3.) THE basis for the finding of invalidity of the resolution is found in the rules themselves. The quorum for a general body meeting of the Podu Dikshitars is fixed under Rule 41 of the rules as 44 members. The general body is also given powers to make new rules and enforce the same. But for this purpose also the quorum is fixed at 44 members. It appears that the Podu Dikshidars had passed a resolution fixing the quorum of a general body meeting at 21. But in this general body of the Podu Dikshitars where the quorum was reduced from 44 to 21 only 19 Dikshidars were present. When the resolution fixing the Kaval Morai was passed, no doubt 29 Dikshidars were present. But the resolution fixing the quorum at 21 can have no validity, as it was passed by a general body of only 19 members. If at that meeting 44 members had been present, they could have validly reduced the quorum of a general body from 44 to 21. The anomaly and the extreme irregularity of the proceeding under which the quorum was reduced to 21 are too apparent. It is in these circumstances that the Courts below have held that the resolution providing for Kaval Morai was invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not accepted the Kaval Morai and when he once paid the fine amounts, he paid them under protest without prejudice to his rights to challenge the same. For the defendant it is contended that in accordance with the rules and usage for realisation of the fine amounts his rights in the temple have been sold and therefore he was lawfully prevented from doing the duties of his office as Archaka and trustee. This plea in defence has not been accepted by the Courts below and quite properly. The plaintiff is bound to obey and carry out the directions of the general body of the trustees duly published and communicated. He will be guilty of indiscipline and disobedience on failure to obey all the lawful directions of the general body. But here the Kaval Morai system is not a duty lawfully imposed on him. It cannot be said that the Kaval Morai system introduced by a resolution passed at a general body meeting where there were less members than the quorum prescribed is valid. Consequently the Kaval Morai system should be considered to be null and void and not an obligation or duty imposed either by custom or usage or rules governing the Podu Dikshidars.