(1.) It is clear from the allegations in the plaint that this suit is not for the establishment of the PLalntiff's right to any office in a temple.
(2.) His claim in the pLalnt is for certain temple honours to be shown to him as 1 Gurikar of a certain caste in a certain village. It is not alleged that any duties are to be performed by him. The act of worship which it is alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the pLalnt that the plaintiff and three other Gurikars do an the Occasion of the annual jatra cannot be regarded as a duty or obligation arising out of an office. The facts of this case are not distinguishable from those which were the subject of the decisions in Sriman Sadagopa V/s. Krishna Tatachariyar 1 M.H.C.R. 301 and Karuppa V/s. Kolanthayan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 91 and Sangappa Bin Baslingappa v. Gangappa Bin Naranjappa I.L.R. 2 Bom. 476 and Narayan V/s. Krishnaji I.L.R. 10 Bom. 233 and Tholappala Charlu V/s. Venkata-charulu I.L.R. 19 Mad. 62 and VathiarVenkatachariar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar 7 L.W. 614.
(3.) We agree with the District Munsif that the suit as framed is not maintainable in a Civil Court.