KO KA BASHIKAR Vs. THANDRINATHA SRINIVASA THATHACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants. They are Thengalail Vaishnava Brahmins. The respondents belong to the VadagaLai Vaishnava sect and are the Dharmakarthas of the Devarajaswami temple in Cbnjeevaram. In the Devarajaswami temple there is a shrine of Manavala Mahamuni, a saint who is held in very great veneration by the Thengalai sect but whom the Vadagalais do not worship. An Utsavam is performed in honour of Manavala Mahamuni which falls in the mon October, or November and lasts for about 10 days. This shrine is within the Devarajaswami temple and is enclosed by walls. There is a gateway by which worshippers obtain access to the shrine and outside this gate is the prakaram of the temple. The case for the plaintiffs is that during the festivals a pandal is to be put up and it was the duty of the trustees of the Devarajaswami temple to erect the pandal, that in 1915 and 1916 the trustees did not put up the pandal pleading want of funds in the Devasthanam and they stated that they would have no objection to put up the pandal if either a permanent fund was created by the Thengalai worshippers or an annual sum of Rs. 20 was paid and that the plaintiffs accordingly tendered Rs. 20 and also offered to set apart a fund of Rs. 200 for the purpose of putting up a pandal but that the trustees wrongfully refused to receive the money and put up the pandal. The suit therefore was for a decree directing the defendants to receive the Rs. 20 offered by the plaintiffs and to put up a pandal in the inner court-yard of the shrine of Manavala Mahamuni and in the outer entrance (Prakaram), to issue a permanent mandatory injunction directing the defendants to receive the money in succeeding years and to put up a pandal or to receive Rs. 200. as a fund. Various defences were raised by the defendants, the chief of which were that the suit is not maintainable by the plaintiffs, that it ought to have been instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act after obtaining the proper sanction, that it was not customary to erect a pandal which extended Beyond the walls of the shrine and into the Prakaram and that the real object of the plaintiffs was to carry the idol of Manavala Mahamuni outside the shrine and into the Prakaram of the temple which was opposed to all custom. The District Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a mandatory injunction directing the Dharmakarthas to put up a pandal according to mamool. He held that the right claimed by the plaintiffs being a personal right, Section 92 had no application. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge who held that the suit ought to have been filed under Section 92 and reversed the decree of the District Munsif. Hence the second appeal.

(2.) So far as the facts are concerned, the finding of the District Munsif that a pandal was being put up for several years has been confirmed by the District Judge. The learned District Judge observes as follows: As far as the putting up of the pandal is concerned, I think there can be no doubt that it is of very long standing dating back certainly to 1820 when the temple was managed by Government and payment towards it was made from the tasdik. I do not think it is now disputed that this putting up of a pandal is of long standing, but if it is, I may say the Lower Court has fully dealt with it and shown it to be established by custom and by legal decisions, e.g., Second Appeals Nos. 174 and 188 of 1894 Ex. C(1) and O.S. No. 11 of 1890 (Ex. C.). It was established that the Thengalais could contribute, but that the pandal was to be put up by the Vadagalai trustees with materials of the temple and that dancing girls from other temples might not be introduced.

(3.) This finding is binding on us and we see no reason to hold that the finding is not amply borne out by the record. The exhibits filed in this case show that the Vadagalai trustees have been putting as many obstacles as possible to the worship by the Thengalais of Manavala Mahamuni in the shrine. The shrine was at one time closed and the Thengalais had to go to Court for the shrine to be opened and they got a decree and when the shrine was opened, the idol was not there and after nearly 12 years of search the idol was found in a tank. When the Thengalais wanted to restore the idol to the shrine objection was taken by the Dharmakarthas that it was a new idol and not the old idol and after considerable litigation the Court found that the idol was the old one and it was restored to the shrine. Then disputes arose as to the pandal to be put up and one stage was reached when the High Court disposed of S. A. No. 137 of 1902. The decision is reported in Vanamamalai Bhashyakar V/s. Krishnaswami Thathachariar (1905) 16 MMLJ 150. The Dharmakarthas of the Devarajaswami temple claimed that they were entitled to the sole management and superintendence of the shrine of Manavala Mahamuni and of all the ceremonies in the shrine including the annual Thirunakshathram Utsavam and that the Thengalai Archakas of that shrine were not entitled to put up a pandal or do anything else independently of the plaintiffs in the said shrine either in connection with the annual Thirunakshathram or otherwise and for an injunction restraining the Archakas from so acting. The High Court called for a finding as to whether the idol of Manavala Mahamuni was entitled to any procession and the District Judge found that the idol was not carried in procession after 1852 except for the short period between 1892 and 1897. The High Court held that the Dharmakarthas of the temple were the persons who were in management of the Thirunakshathram but they refused to give any finding or direction as to the procession on the ground that it was not within the scope of that suit and stated that if there was any grievance the worshippers could apply under Act XX of 1863.