RAJAH VURMAH VALIA Vs. RAVI VURMAH MUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the person who has been throughout the argument called the Chemhel Rajah against a decree of the Civil Court of Tellicherry and a decree of the High Court of Madras, both dismissing his suit. The Rajah claims to be the assignee of the uraima right, or right of management, of the Traoharamana pagoda and its subordinate ehctroms, under an assignment from the persons known as the urallers of that religious foundation. The early history of the foundation seems to be lost; no trustworthy account of its origin is to be found in the evidence taken on the remand by the High Court. The nature of the existing institution, however, is shown pretty clearly upon the proceedings. It appears that the so-called pagoda is not a pagoda in the ordinary sense of the word, but a mere platform in the middle of the forest, upon which, once in every yeai', certain ceremonies take place in honour of a particular idol; that to this annual festival a large number of persons resort; that considerable presents and offerings are made there by the worshippers; and that the festival is a matter of general interest to the Hindu inhabitants of that part of the country. It also appears that the property of the trust consists partly of a large landed estate, and partly of jewels of considerable value, which were kept in a place called Karimpana Goprum. The Rajah having obtained from the urallers the assignment contained in Exhibit E, succeeded in getting into possession of the whole or greater portion of the landed property; but his right to the custody of the jewels was disputed by the Defendants to this suit and others; who actively resisted his attempt to remove them from their ordinary place of custody. There being a real or supposed risk of a breach of the peace, the usual reference to the magistrate took place. Whilst that was pending, the Rajah asserted that the goprum had been broken open and some of the jewels abstracted. However that may be, it is certain that the persons accused of having robbed the goprum were acquitted of any criminal offence; that the jewels which they were said to have stolen were placed in the hands of the magistrate, who passed an order forbidding the Rajah to remove the property, or any portion of it, from its usual place of security in the goprum until he had the authority of the Civil Court for so doing; and directing that the keys of the room which contained the jewels should remain in the hands of the person who is the third Defendant on this record. Upon this the Cherahel Rajah brought the present suit.

(2.) IT seems to their Lordships that there was some little confusion and misconception in the Indian Courts as to the nature of the suit. The Civil Judge speaks of it as a suit for specific performance. Again, Mr. Justice Holloway, in the second ground of his judgment on the appeal, seems to draw a distinction between the jewels and the other property belonging to the institution, and to express an opinion that in order to dispose of the Plaintiff's claim, it was sufficient to say that the jewek having been devoted to the service of an idol, were extra commercium, and could not pass under the assignment. The suit is clearly not one for specific performance. It is not brought against the other parties to the contract, the urallers, but against persons, strangers to the contract, who are disputing the right of the Plaintiff under his assignment to take possession of a portion of the property belonging to the pagoda.

(3.) THE parties having put in their written statements, certain issues were settled in the cause.