RATTAN SINGH Vs. BELI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the order of Mr. Sheo Parshad, Senior Subordinate Judge, gurdaspur, allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to entertain it. The Senior Subordinate judge remanded the case for trial on merits.

(2.) THE case relates to a Mandir called Baba Nam Dev which on the 30th October 1936 was declared by the Lahore High Court not to be a Sikh Gurd-wara. The plaintiffs claim to be Bawas and followers of Baba Nam Dev and worshippers of the temple. They have alleged that the defendants have been obstructing the plaintiffs from entering the temple bare-headed and from worshipping while bare-headed, and they prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing their entrance bare-headed and from worshipping while they had their heads uncovered. A preliminary objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs' claim did not fall "within the ambit of a civil nature. Therefore a civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. " The plaintiffs took an appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge who held that "head-dress or no head-dress at the time of worship is not ritual. " The plaintiffs had alleged that they had been worshipping bare-headed since long and therefore it was a decision of a civil right. He allowed the appeal and ordered the trial of the suit on merits.

(3.) IN appeal it was submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs was to follow a particular kind of ritual and therefore under Section 9 of the Civil P. C, such a suit cannot be entertained. Reliance was placed on 'tiru Krishnama v. Krishna Sami', 2 Mad 62 (PC), where it was held that a claim to certain pecuniary benefits to which a plaintiff alleges himself to be entitled in respect of certain religious services, is a claim which a civil Court can entertain. I cannot see how this case helps the proposition which the appellant is contending for. He next relied on 'subbaraya mudaliar v. Vedantachariar', 28 Mad 23 where it was held that a right to recite sacred texts is a matter of ritual and therefore a suit with regard to it is not entertainable by a civil Court. He next referred to 'kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar', 56 Mad 657 (PC ). This was a case under order 1, Rule 8 and of the applicability of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case again in my opinion has no application to the facts of the present case. 'sifat Ali v. Ali Mian', air (20) 1933 All 284 which was next referred to was a case under the Specific Relief Act. All that was held was that the plaintiffs were entitled to enter the mosque and offer up prayers with the regular congregation behind the Imam chosen by the members of the congregation and they could not have a separate congregation behind an Imam of their own. This case again in my opinion is of no assistance in the present case. 'lokenath v. Dasarathi Tewari', 32 Cal 1072 was a suit by a worshipper of an idol which was not based on any right to the property in the idol or to an office but was to locate the idol in a particular temple, there being no allegation that the plaintiff was prevented from worshipping the idol at the latter temple, and it was held that this suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court. There is nothing in this case either which can help the appellant.