MUTHUKUMARASWAMIA PILLAI Vs. RSSUBBARAYA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. No. 1405 of 1925. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura in A.S. No. 2 of 1922 which affirmed the decree of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The suit related to the office of Sri Pandaram in Vaidyanathasawmi temple, Srivilliputtur. The plaintiffs alleged that the office was held by one Veerappa, Pillai's family as a hereditary office, that they as members of that family are at present entitled to hold that office, that defendants 1 and 2 are trustees of the temple and that defendants 3 to 6 are obstructing them from holding office and receiving its emoluments. The suit was. for a declaration of their right to hold the office and for an injunction directing, the defendants not to prevent the plaintiffs from entering into the temple and performing the duties attached to it. Various issues were raised in the case but in this second appeal we are concerned only with the questions formulated by the Subordinate Judge as points 3, 4 and 5 which are as follows: Point 3.-Whether a suit for a mere declaration and injunction without a prayer for possession cannot be maintained. Point 4.-Whether the plaintiffs have got title to the office claimed. Point 5.-Whether the plaintiffs rights, if any, are barred by limitation.

(3.) The lower appellate Court found that the office of Sri Pandaram was held by Veerappa's family as a hereditary office and that a suit for a mere declaration and injunction without a prayer for possession could be maintained; but it held that the plaintiffs have no present title-to the office claimed and that their rights, if any, are barred by limitation. The appellants call into question the correctness of the decision on points 4 and 5, while the respondents try to sustain the judgment also on the ground that a suit for a mere declaration and injunction would not lie on which point the learned Subordinate Judge, as stated before, has found against him. A decision on any of these points, if it is adverse to the plaintiffs, will entail a dismissal of this second appeal,