SONACHALAM PILLAI Vs. KUMARAVELU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are Vaniyars or oil-mongers of Tiruchendur. They sue for a declaration that they are entitled to worship in the Subrahmaniaswami temple at Tiruchendur by going into the inner Mayil Maha Mantapam, to go round all the prakarams in the temple, to place their Kavadies on the koradu in front of the Valliamman shrine, etc., and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of worship.

(2.) The defendants, who are the Dharmakarthas, Stanikars of the temple and the three Vellala inhabitants of Tiruchendur, deny the plaintiffs right to go into the Mayil Maha Mantapam for the purpose of worship and their right to place Kavadies on the koradu in front of the Valliamman shrine and contend that they and their caste-men are prohibited from going beyond the Irawatha Mantapam or going round any of the prakarams. The Subordinate judge of Tuticorin has granted the plaintiffs the declaration and injunction prayed for. The defendants prefer this appeal.

(3.) The first point urged by the learned Advocate-General for the appellants is that the present suit is barred by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 14 of 1877 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin which was confirmed on appeal to the High Court in A.S. No. 73 of 1878. Before considering the appeal on the merits it is necessary to record a finding on the question of res judicata, for, if the suit is barred by reason of the decision in the previous suit, it would not be necessary to try the appeal on the merits. The present suit is by the Vaniyars of Tiruchendur. They have obtained permission under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to sue on behalf of all the Vaniya Vysia residents of Tiruchendur. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 14 of 1877 were four Vaniyars, two of whom father and son were residents of Venkatramapuram, and the other two were residents of Thattamadam Village, Then-karai Taluk, Tinnevelly District. The plaint as translated in the printed record before us is admittedly incorrect and it has been corrected. In prayer 1 the words "and other Vaniyars" should be added between the words "plaintiffs" and "to worship" and at the end of the paragraph the words "and to establish the right of the plaintiffs and others belonging to the Vaniyar caste." Their allegation in the plaint was that they and all the other Vaniyars had from time immemorial been in the habit of worshipping the deity going as far as the wooden Ali. (lattice),, placed between Ardhamantapam and Mahamantapam in the temple of Sri Subrahmania Swami at Tiruchendur and also tying and taking Kavadies and placing them before the Valliamman temple comprised within the compound of Sri Subrahmania Swami temple, and that on the 8 February, 1876, the 1 plaintiff was taking Kavadi and bowing in. worship within the temple of the said Sri Subrahmania Swami along with the plaintiffs 2 to 4, that the defendants 1 to 7 had pushed the plaintiffs out of the said temple unjustly and forcibly and they prayed that "the Court may be pleased to pass a decree establishing the right due to the plaintiffs to worship the deity going as far as the wooden lattice placed between Ardhamantapam and Mahamantapam in the temple of Sri Subrahmania Swami and to tie and take Kavadies and place them before the Valliamman temple comprised within the compound of the said temple of God Subrahmania and to establish the right of the Vaniyars and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to them and other Vaniyars and for damages for Rs. 5,000 for loss of dignity and mental pain caused to the plaintiffs." The defendants were the Maniyam, Archakar, other servants and the Dharmakarthas of the temple. They in their written statement denied the right of the plaintiffs and other Vaniyars to go into the Mahamantapam and averred that from immemorial usage the limit prescribed for their worship was the spot marked "C" in the plan, and that as they had exceeded that limit they were properly sent out of the temple. The Subordinate Judge of Ttiticorin after a careful consideration of the evidence dismissed the plaintiffs suit. They appealed to the High Court in A.S. No. 73 of 1878. Mr. Justice Innes and Mr. Justice Muttuswami Aiyar dismissed the appeal with the remark that the reasons assigned by the Judge who passed the decree dismissing the plaintiffs suit are satisfactory to show that plaintiffs have not made out the right they claim.