KOVALAKUDI SINGAM AIYANGAR Vs. KKASTURIRANGA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned District Judge has in respect of almost every question of fact decided in favour of the plaintiffs, but has come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable by reason of Clause 3 of Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act II of 1927). The question to be decided in the appeal is, whether the view of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by the provision referred to above, can be sustained.

(2.) The suit has been brought by certain five worshippers in the Sri Ranganathaswami temple at Srirangam with the con sent obtained of the Board of Commissioners. The object of the suit is to get a declaration in respect of a class of persons known as Sukhavasis. The plaintiffs complain that these Sukhavasis have been asserting a claim to a certain fixed share of the Prasadams offered to the deity, and that in assertion of that right, they have gone the length of claiming a cash pay ment in lieu of their share of the Prasadam when that is not available. The questions which the learned Judge had to decide were: (1) whether the Sukhavasis had been in enjoy ment of the allowances, as alleged by them, continuously for such a period, as would serve to raise a presumption of a legal origin, and (2) whether the emoluments were attached to the performance of any religious office, service or duty in the temple in question. On both these matters, the learned District Judge in a lucid and closely reasoned judgment, has recorded findings, as already stated, against the defendants. We may incidentally observe here that the word Sukhavasi means one who lives in comfort without any particular employment (Tamil Lexicon published by the University of Madras).

(3.) The respondents counsel has not challenged these findings of fact, and the question that now has to be decided therefore is one of law, namely, whether or not the suit is barred under Section 73(3) of the Act.