ANNA RANGACHARIAR Vs. VPARTHASARATHY IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Thengalai Vaishnava Brahmans, residents in Triplicane, for a declaration that they are entitled to the office of Adhyapakam, Vedaparayanam, Arulipadu, Puranam and the Kattuyam in the temple of Sri Parthasarathiswami at Triplicane, that the trustees have no right to appoint anybody else to the said offices, that as such mirasidars they are entitled to the honours and emoluments set out in schedule A to the plaints, for an injunction restraining the 1 and 2nd defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the said offices and the receipt of the emoluments, for damages and costs.

(2.) The case for the plaintiffs is that from time immemorial, the Thengalai Sri Vaishnava residents of Triplicane have been interested in and have had the rights of control over the temple, that they have been entitled to the mirasi offices set out in the plaint and the receipt of perquisites, that, as a matter of convenience, a list from among those persons who are willing and duly qualified to discharge the duties of the said offices was occasionally kept in the temple for the information of the temple staff in connexion with the distribution of Prasadams and other emoluments, that on special occasions respectable orthodox Brahmans from other places were allowed to take part in the Goshti and share in its perquisites with the consent of the Sthalathars, that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have for some time past been wrongfully acting contrary to mamool and in violation of the ancient and established rights of the plaintiffs, that disputes have arisen between the Sthalathars and the trustees and in consequence thereof Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have infringed on the plaintiffs rights and withheld the emoluments, that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have set up that the recitation of Vazhi Thirunamams of Alwars and Acharyas, the recital of which has been going on for several years and which is customary, is contrary to custom and threatened to suspend and dismiss the Adyapakas who recite those Vazhi Thirunamams, that there have been disputes and differences owing to the wrongful conduct of the trustees set out in the plaint and that it is necessary that there should be a decree establishing the plaintiffs rights.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who have made common cause in the suit deny the plaintiffs rights and state that there is no such miras as is claimed in the plaint and that the trustees have the right to appoint and dismiss Adhyapakas. They state that the recital of special Vazhi Thirunamam is contrary to the established practice, and that they were justified in forbidding the recital and in dismissing such of the Adhyapakas as disobeyed the order. Their case is that Adhyapakas are mere temple servants appointed by the trustees and liable to be dismissed by them. They raise various legal defences as to the non-maintaina-bility of the suit owing to want of leave to sue under Order 1, B. 8, Civil P. C., they plead limitation as the trustees and their predecessors in office have been exercising the rights of appointment and dismissal of and the control over the Adhyapakas for over 30 years. They state that the suit is bad as there is no prayer for the setting aside of the dismissal of Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, that the suit is not cognizable by a civil Court in so far as the plaintiffs want to interfere with the ceremonials of the temple regarding the recital of Vazhi Thirunamam and that the claim of the plaintiffs to control the duties and functions of the trustees is res judicata, on account of the decree in C.S. No. 161 of 1891 and C. S. No. 111 of 1918.