M CUPPUSAWMI CHETTY Vs. ATDORAISAWMY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who it is alleged belongs to the januva class, a subdivision of the Vaisya community, married in June 1905 with the sanction of the caste Guru one of his daughters to one Venugopala Chetty, a High Court Vakil, who also is alleged to belong to the same sub-division. The plaint alleges that the defendants in collusion with others "intending to disgrace the plaintiff and to cause it to be believed that the marriage connection was improper and low and that the plaintiff thereby became an outcaste, falsely and maliciously from time to time performed or caused to be performed prayaschitham or purification ceremony to various persons that dined in the plaintiff's house or ousted or caused to be ousted such persons from private houses when assembled forfeasts, &c," and after referring to a few instances states : Finally on the occasion of the death of the mother of one Vilvapathi Chetty, and Ruckmangotha Chetty, plaintiff himself attended the Karu- manthiram ceremony on invitation, when the defendants intending to injure the plaintiff, his name and credit, and to cause it to be believed that plaintiff became an out caste, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of the plaintiff, the words following: prayas-chitham must be performed as Kuppusami Chetty attended the karumanthiratn ; and openly caused prayaschitham to be performed to Ruckmangotha Chetti, falsely and maliciously meaning and intending thereby that the plaintiff was an out caste" and it is also alleged that the plaintiff has been injured in credit and reputation, and has lost his position as a Kariyasthan of the community. The plaintiff, therefore, sues for damages. The suit was dismissed by the City Court Judge on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. The plaintiff appeals. The only question, therefore, for consideration is whether, if the facts stated in the plaint are proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to any relief.

(2.) The Judge is of opinion that every member of a caste is entitled to have his own views about the propriety or otherwise of the conduct of another person as regards real or supposed caste customs or usages and if the defendants and certain other members of the caste "boycott" the plaintiff and his friends for what they considered to be his transgression of caste rules, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. This power to "boycott" implies also the power to indicate the course which the plaintiff and others who associate with him must adopt if they wish to purge themselves of what was in the defendants eyes a caste offence, and to associate with them. They were, therefore, entitled to insist upon prayaschitham by the plaintiff. The Judge further held that prayaschitham, does not necessarily imply that plaintiff is an out caste. It, may be required for any, transgression of caste rules and as there is no allegation in the plaint that the defendants called the plaintiff an out caste, he held that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed it.

(3.) The Judge is, of course, right in holding that it is open to the defendants to refuse to associate with the plaintiff, on account of what they consider to be a breach of any caste rule. In fact they might do so without being called upon by the Courts to give any reason; they might also impose any conditions they liked upon the plaintiff if the latter-wished to associate with them. But the question before us is very different. It is conceded before us and it is established by decided cases that it is defamatory to call a person an out caste. A caste, no doubt, is a voluntary association of persons for certain purposes. It is open to a person to leave it. But every Hindu, at any rate, the majority of them, are born into some caste or other. Their status and their relations towards the other castes are defined and fixed by the castes to which they belong. Their matrimonial relations, their laws of inheritance and generally their religious and social rights and duties also are determined by their caste. That many of these duties are only of imperfect obligation and not legal makes no difference so far as the question before us is concerned, A person cannot be deprived of the membership of the caste except in accordance with caste usage.