ANANTHANARAYANA AIYAR, MANAGER OF THE MEENATCHI SUNDARESWARAL DEVASTANAM AND ABISHEKA SUNDARAM BATTER Vs. ATHIMUTHU AIYAR ALIAS ATHI AND MUNEESWARA AIYAR ALIAS ATHI AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent s (plaintiff s) suit was decreed by the learned District Judge on his finding that he (the plaintiff) was entitled by hereditary right to the office of Athikara Parapathyam in the Madura Meenatchi Temple. The final decree granted the following relief to the plaintiff: (a) that the plaintiff do recover from defendants the plaint mentioned office together with the right to the honours and perquisites attached thereto." (b) that the defendants be restrained by an injunction from interfering with the plaintiff s discharge of the duties of the office and from enjoying the honours, etc." (c) that the defendants do pay plaintiff Rs. 100 for past profits and also subsequent profits at Its. 100 from the date of suit to the date of plaintiff s restoration," (d) that defendants pay Rs. 294-15-5 (proportionate costs) to plaintiff and bear their own costs.

(2.) The defendants Nos. 2 to 10 (the Stanika Bhattars of the temple and the person, 10th defendant, appointed by them in supersession of the plaintiff to the office) have filed two Appeals Nos. 269 of 1909 and 122 of 1910 (one against the preliminary decree which did not ascertain the mesne profits and the other against the final decree which mentioned the definite sum due to the plaintiff for mesne profits). The first defendant (who is the temple trustee and manager) has filed a separate third appeal (Appeal No. 262 of 1909) against the preliminary decree which made him liable along with the other defendants for the plaintiff s proportionate costs and for the mesne profits due to the plaintiff. The principal point for decision in the suit is whether the plaint office descended hereditarily to the plaintiff or whether it was an office to which the Stanikars (defendants Nos. 2 to 9) could appoint anybody they chose from time to time, removing their nominee at their pleasure.

(3.) Mr. T. Rangachariar for the Stanikars (defendants Nos. 2 to 9) discussed the judgment of the learned District Judge and the evidence in the case fully before us, but we see no sufficient reason to differ from the conclusion of the learned District Judge on the above question. We may not be prepared to agree with the learned District Judge in his rather wide observation that "it is a matter of common knowledge that the old temple offices are by custom hereditary," and one of us has in more than one case expressed a rather strong view that Courts should always hesitate to recognize hereditary rights in temple offices.