(PERIA) MUNIYAN Vs. (PERIA) PAYYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the cancellations of the order of suspension passed against them and defendants 3 to 5 by defendant 10 as a member of the temple committee of Uttankarai taluk.

(2.) The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 are pujaris in the Vediyappan temple in the village of Kallavi. By an arrangement the right of performing the puja has been divided into two turns, defendants 1 and 2 having a turn of one-and-a-half years and the other pujaris having a of turn of two years by rotation The turn of defendants 1 and 2 ended on 26 January 1916, when the turn of plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 5 started. The plaintiffs alleged that, purporting to be acting under the order passed by defendant 10 suspending them from office, defendants 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 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 it self was bad as it was not issued on behalf of the entire temple committee. All these contentions were 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 gave the plaintiffs a decree, declaring that the order of suspension is invalid and illegal, and that the plaintiffs shall be placed in possession of the pujariship for themselves and on behalf of some of the defendants. By the decree defendants 1 and 2 were also restrained from interfering with the enjoyment of the pujariship by the plaintiffs. As against this decree a second appeal was filed by defendants 1 and 2, but this was dismissed by Krishnan, J., on the preliminary ground, viz., that defendants 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 1 and 2. The present Letters Patent appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment of Krishnan, J.