PERIA MUNIYAN Vs. PERIA PAYYAN ALIAS MUNIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaiatiffs for the cancellation of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 by the 10 defendant as a member of the Temple Committee of Uttankarai Taluk.

(2.) The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple ia the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having a turn of one and a half years and the other pujaris having a turn of two years by rotation. The turn of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 ended on the 26th January, 1915, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants Noa. 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by the 10 defendant suspending, them from office, defendants Nos, 1 and 2 Obstructed them from entering the temple and exercising their functions. Amongst other things, the plaintiffs contended that the Temple Committee had no jurisdiction over the plaint temple, that the order of suspension is unjustifiable inasmuch as the lands alienated by the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 did not belong to the temple, that the Committee had no right to suspend the pujaris directly except through the intervention of the dharmakarthas; and that the order itself was bad as it was not issued on behalf of the entire Temple Committee All these coatentions weie controverted by the defendants. For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to state in greater detail the contentions raised by the parties.

(3.) The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Subordinate Judge reversed it and give tha plaintiffs a decree, declaring that the order of suspension is invalid and illegal and that tha plaintiffs shall be placed in poajessioa of tha pujariship for themselves and on behalff of some of the defendants, By the decree defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were also restrained from interfering with the enjoyment of the pujariship by the plaintiffs. As against this decree a second appealiwas filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but this was dismissed by Krishnan, J., on the preliminary ground, viz, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no right of appeal, that the Temple Committee has not appealed, and that the decree does not affect the turn of management of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment of Krishnan, J.