VATHIAR VENKATACHARIAR Vs. PPONAPPA AYYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, in Original Suit No. 11 of 1913, dismissing the plaintiff s suit on the ground that his claim was not of a civil nature under Section 9, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st plaintiff having died, the 2nd plaintiff alone has appealed to us against that decree and his learned Vakil has strongly urged that the finding of the lower Court is wrong.

(2.) The plaintiffs case, as stated in the plaint, is that in the Adniada Alwar temple in Alwar Tirnnagari in the Tinnevelly District there is an office called "Teertham or Teerthakar s" office of which they and others, in all 29 in number, are the office holders, that the duty of the said office holders is to recite the Prabandam or Tiruvoimoli and the Vedas in the temple and in places where the idol is taken in procession when the Goshti or group of Teerthakars is formed, that special places are allotted to each of them in the temple for this purpose and that attached to this office as an emolument of it is the right to receive Teertham or Loly water and Prasadam or holy food and some other small perquisites in a fixed order of precedence. The rank of the plaintiffs family is stated to be the 14th in what is called the 1st cup group; considerable importance no doubt is attached to this rank by the parties. The plaintiffs complain that the trustees, defendants Nos. 1 to 5, have improperly introduced into their group, in a place above theirs in rank, the 6th defendant who has no right to be there according to the practice in the temple and have thus illegally interfered with their rank or right of precedence.

(3.) They do not complain that any portion of the Teethe and Prasad am which have to be given to them is been reduced; but they ask the Court to declare that the 6th defendant is not a Teerthakar officer and is not entitled to any place or Stanam and any honours as such officer, and to restrain him by an injunction from occupying such a place and receiving such honours and the trustees from allowing him to do so. Both the trustees and the 6th defendant have denied the existence of any such office and of any duties or honours attached to it and have pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court. They also alleged that the 6th defendant was entitled to the rank given to him.