A CHINNASWAMI THATHACHARIAR Vs. SRIRANGAM NALLAN CHAKRAVARTHI SINGARACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three points have been raised and argued by the learned vakil for the appellants, Mr. K. Balasubramania Iyer, in this second appeal. The suit from which this appeal has arisen was instituted by one Srirangam Nallan Chakravarthi Singara-Chariar for a declaration that he is the legal holder of the office of what is called third arulapad or third thirtham in the temple of Sri Devaraja Swami at Coneeveram and for an injunction restraining the defendants, trustees for the time being of the temple, from interfering with the discharging of his office and also for the recovery of emoluments for a period of six years prior to suit. In the Court of first instance the District Munsif granted the decree in favour of the plain- tiff. The same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court with some slight modifications; And hence this second appeal.

(2.) The first point that was argued was that it has not been proved by the plaintiff that there is in connexion with the suit temple an office of the kind. It was argued by the learned vakil that all that was set out in the schedule to the plaint was in the nature of mere honours and emoluments, that there were no duties really indicated as those liable to be discharged by the holder of any such office and that therefore in modification of the view of both the lower Courts we should come to the conclusion that the existence of no such office in this temple has been established. If the matter were res integra, no doubt we should have experienced considerable difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the facts whether what has been alleged by the plaintiff really constitutes in its true nature an office. An office in connexion with such institutions must really be regarded as a bundle of duties liable to be performed by the same persons under a particular designation and carrying with it certain emoluments. In this case it has been undoubtedly found by both the lower Courts that one of the duties of the office is to be present at the performance of religious ceremonies especially at the beginning and at the end. There is a considerable body of evidence on the record to show that such presence at the performance of religious ceremonies was not only usual, not only in the nature of a right, but also distinctly an obligation or duty.

(3.) It is therefore not a case in which the lower Courts have come to the conclusion without any evidence whatever. I consider there is considerable evidence, and at any rate some portion of the evidence is undoubtedly of a reliable character. Nor is there anything in the nature itself of the act required to be performed which may lead me to suppose that it cannot possibly be regarded as a duty or obligation. The presence at the performance of religious ceremonies of persons who are or may be supposed to be well versed in the rituals and the manner of performance may be regarded as not only useful but necessary in the interests of the institution. Though undoubtedly if one has regard only to the origin of these honours and emoluments one cannot help thinking that they must have been at any rate at one time merely intended for the purpose of showing particular distinction to the members of special families either on account of their learning or on account of their services-rendered by them to the institution, still there can also be no doubt that in course of time certain specific duties have become at any rate engrafted on to these honours and emoluments, and having regard to the course of decisions in this Court it is impossible at the present day to hold that, even though the performance of obligation or duty of such character may not possess all the aspects of a regular office, still it does not constitute an office of such a nature as to make it a Civil claim with regard to which civil Courts will have jurisdiction. There is at least one duty, therefore, attaching to this third arulapad or thirtham which both the lower Courts have found and no reason has been shown why or how that finding is not correct. If therefore there is. at least one specific duty and there are also emoluments, it follows that it must be regarded as an office.