RATTAN SINGH Vs. BELI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-respondents claiming the right to worship in a shrine called Mandir Baba Nam Dev brought a suit against the appellants because the appellants had objected to their entering the temple bare-headed. In the suit the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with their rights as devotees in the temple and from preventing their entering the temple bare-headed. A preliminary objection was raised to the effect that no civil suit lay to enforce a right of this type and that the plaintiffs were merely seeking to enforce a certain type of ritual with regard to religious worship. This objection was allowed by trial Judge and the plaint was rejected. On appeal the Senior Subordinate Judge held that a civil suit lay and that the question of head-dress had nothing to do with what kind of ritual plaintiffs wish to enforce. A second appeal came before Kapur, J., and he dismissed it holding that the plaintiff could maintain the suit. Against the decision of Kapur, J., an appeal under Clause 10, Letters Patent was filed, and in support of this appeal Mr. Harbans Singh Gujral has urged that the plaintiffs cannot bring a suit to enforce a form of ritual in relation to religious worship. Upon a reading of the plaint, however, it is clear that the plaintiffs claim to worship in this temple. Their right is being challenged and denied by the defendants who prevent them from going into the temple whenever they are bare-headed. The trustees of the temple have no objection to the absence of head-dress on the worshippers. The appellants are also worshippers and their contention is that nobody should enter the temple bareheaded. They therefore stop the plaintiffs from entering the temple & worshipping therein whenever they come bare-headed. According to the plaintiffs their civil right to worship in the temple is being denied to them by the defendants. It is admitted that the plaintiffs have a right to worship in the temple. The plaintiffs claim that they can go to the temple bare-headed and since, the defendants prevent them from doing so the plaintiffs have a right to go to a Court of law and ask for an injunction against the defendants. The defendants can naturally plead that the rules of the institution do not permit a person to enter it bare-head. They can oppose the plaintiffs' claim on any other ground that may be open to them. But it cannot be argued that the plaintiffs have no right to go to a Court of law Since the right to worship is being denied by the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiffs can seek their remedy in a Court of Law. Supposing the defendants prohibit every worshipper from entering the temple unless he wore a red waistcoat, the person so prohibited would undoubtedly have the right to go to a Court of law and say that his right Is being denied to him and the Court should determine whether he can enter the temple without a red waistcoat or not. In the present case the plaintiffs certainly have a right to maintain their suit and their claim must be considered on merits. This appeal must therefore fail and is dismissed with costs.

(2.) The parties have been directed to appear before the trial Court on 17-8-1953, Bhandari, C.J.

(3.) As this appeal raises a general question as to the circumstances in which a person can approach a Court of law for the enforcement of his legal rights, I have considered it desirable to add a few lines.