MANAGOBINDA PANDA Vs. SRIMAT PARAMAHANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff, who is the Superintendent of the Deity Shri Lokenath Deb at Puri has the right of offering pangthi -bhog to the Thakur on Kanyachori Day. The plaintiff also claimed damages owing to loss sustained by him on account of the defendant's refusal to accept the bhog offered by him on 30 -5 -41 when the deity was being taken out in procession on that occasion.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that defendant 1 who is a sebak of the deity had his turn of seba on that day and that the deities Hara and Parbati were taken out of the temple on procession. It is further admitted that panthi bhog is offered by devotees at certain places as the deities go out in procession through the streets. When the procession reached a little distance from the plaintiff's math defendants 2 to 4 at the instigation of defendant 1 removed the deities from the palanquin and went away declining to take the deities, to the plaintiff's math for receiving the panthi bhog. The bhog that the plaintiff had prepared for being offer -ed to the deities was worth Rs. 60/12/ - and had to be destroyed as it could not be offered to the deities.

(3.) THE point, however, that has been seriously contested by Mr. De, for the appellant is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it is not cognizable under Section 9, Civil P.C. That section bars from the cognizance of Civil Courts suits for enforcement of a right which depends entirely on the decision of questions as the religious rights or ceremonies. But rights to property or to office are of a civil nature and can be enforced by a suit. If, therefore, the suit is laid for enforcing a right to an office or for damages for violation of that right the suit is r.ot exempted from the cognizance of the civil Courts. If, however, it involves merely a question of honours of privileges attached to a religious office, the civil Court will not entertain a claim based on such claims. The distinction has been well laid down in - - 'Chitti Babu v. Venkata Subba', AIR 1933 Mad 264 (A). In that case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that as the senior member of the family, he was entitled to conduct a particular festival in a temple. He, however, conceded that he was neither bound to go to the temple, nor could the temple authorities compel him to goto the temple, on the festival day to perform it. Moreover, in that case it was conceded that the funds for the Utsavam came from, the trustees and that the plaintiff could send a substitute to supervise the festival. The plaintiff did not claim any right of property in the temple or in an office. All that his claim amounted to was to compel the temple authorities to put into his hands certain offerings and confer upon him the usual honours. In such circumstances the plaintiff's claim was rejected and the suit was held to be not maintainable.