NILI RANGASAMI MUDALIAR Vs. KARI KRISHNA BATTACHARCAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff (respondent) is the hereditary Archaka for performing certain Poojas in the Sri Krishna Perumal Devasthanam. He was dismissed from his office by the 1st defendant (appellant before us), the Trustee of the Devasthanam since 1909, and brought his suit to declare that his dismissal was improper and for an injunction to restrain, inter alia, 1st defendant from excluding him (plaintiff) from his rights and for Rs. 349-8-0 damages respecting the value of honours detained from the plaintiff by 1st defendant.

(2.) The District Munsif decreed that, upon plaintiff filing in Court an undertaking that he will faithfully obey the orders of the trustee or his deputy for the time being in all the matters pertaining to the Archakaship, including the showing of temporal honours by garland, Theertham and the like to Ubayakars, and generally to conduct himself in subordination to the trustee in respect of his duties, the order of dismissal should be set aside and the plaintiff restored to office. He also granted an injunction, but found against plaintiff on the subject of emoluments. The Temporary Subordinate Judge confirmed this decree, but awarded the plaintiff emoluments as claimed by him. The 1st defendant appealed. The charges against the plaintiff were set out at length and two seta of these were dealt with in argument before us, viz., charges IV, VI, and IX. together and charges VIII and X together. The first set of charges relates to non-observance on plaintiff s part of garland honours due to the 1st defendant : the second set relates to the non- observance of honours to certain Ubayakars. The plaintiff s answer to the first set of charges is that the orders of the 1st defendant were contrary to the Mamul of the temple : his answer to the second set is that his Swathanthrams were not paid to him.

(3.) The real fact seems to be that this is a contest between the temple committee on the one hand and the trustee on the other. The temple committee issued orders relating to the garland honours in Exhibit III dated June 1913. It is stated that the Amin, who was the 1st defendant s deputy, was refused garland honours subsequently to this by plaintiff, in consequence of Exhibit III. First defendant thereupon issued Exhibit I in January 1914, laying down the procedure as to these honours. All these relate to charges IV, VI and IX. As before stated, the answer to the charges VIII and X was that 1st defendant withheld the perquisites due to plaintiff. The question really is whose authority the plaintiff is bound to obey--can he set up the authority of the temple committee as against the trustee? Mr. T.R. Venkatarama Sastri has argued that the temple committee can intervene to see that the Mamul of the temple is carried out. The Subordinate Judge found that there was nothing to show what the Mamul was and that Exhibit III was an illegal document. He seems to think, however, that the plaintiff might be justified in regarding the committee as having the authority of overriding that of 1st defendant in these matters. Both Courts found the charges proved against plaintiff. We had a long discussion as to the effect of certain provisions of Madras Regulation VII of 1817 Endowments and Escheats, and the Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1663) in order to support the contention of the plaintiff as to the authority of the temple committee, but on a consideration of these enactments we are satisfied that it could never have been intended that Government as represented by the Board of Revenue or the temple committee, as the successor of the Board, should intervene on a question of the kind before us, viz., purely temporal honours to certain definite persons. Section 15 of the Regulation and Section 12 of the Act seem to us to be perfectly clear to exclude such matters as those in suit entirely.