VEERABHADRASWAMIVARI TEMPLE NANGAGADDA Vs. PENUMUDI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by the defendant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) against the decree, dated 5th August, 1963 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatnam in S.C. Suit, No. 63 of 1961.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiffs are three of the four hereditary archakas and the defendant is the trustee representing the Sri Veerabhadraswamivari temple at Nangegadda. Under clause ,7 of an agreement by way of a compromise entered into on 25th July, 1956, between -the archakas and the trustees of the temple the paditharam expenses of the temple were to be borne by the trustee. The said agreement was embodied in Exhibit A-1, the order, dated 29th September, 1956, of the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 1956. The plaintiff's case is that, they incurred the paditharam expenses for the period from fasli 1366 to fasli 1370 and brought the suit to recover the same from the defendant. They claimed the expenses at the rate of Rs. 40 per month on the foot of Exhibit A-5, an order, dated 15th July, 1959, of the Assistant Commissioner temporarily fixing " paditharam charges " until the " dittam " was approved. The learned trial Judge negatived all the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit with costs for Rs. 1,840 claimed by the plaintiffs. The defendant seeks to agitate the same contentions again in revision on the ground that the decision of the lower Court is erroneous.

(3.) The first point taken by Sri G. Balaparameswari Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the claim in the suit is in respect of a perquisite or emolument falling under section 57, clause (e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitaable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951) and that the suit in the civil Court is therefore barred by section 93 of that Act. The learned trial Judge held that paditharam is not an emolument of the archakas but the actual expenses incurred by the archakas for performing Nitya Neivedya Deeparadhana. The defendant adduced absolutely no evidence to show either the nature of the paditharam or that it was essentially a profit or advantage benefiting the archakas. No doubt, paditharam means " an allowance made to a temple " (Wilson's Glossary, 1855, at page 286) or " allowance " Sankaranarayana's Telugu-English Dictionary, 1953 at page 668). In the present case, Exhibit A-1 refers to " Paditharam expenses " which clearly indicates that it is an allowance for an expenditure incurred. By Exhibit A-5, the paditharam charges are fixed until the ' dittam ' is approved and ' dittam ' refers to the scale of expenditure in the institution : See section 51 of Act XIX of 1951. The purpose of the expenditure apparently is the performance of the daily rituals of ' Nitya Neivedya Deeparadhana'. The allowance is therefore intended to meet the expenses incurred for necessary rituals. It may be that some of the offerings made to the deity during the rituals, such as the cooked food, are ultimately given to the archakas and by the manner of their disposal become perquisites. But this would not be a ground for regarding the ritual itself as being intended for the profit or advantage of the archakas. The suit does not raise any dispute as to the disposal of the offerings and therefore no question under section 57 (e) of the Act arises. The enforcement of the agreement between the parties embodied in Exhibit A-1 is the subject-matter of the suit and therefore the civil Court has clearly jurisdiction to entertain it.