SUKRATENDRA TIRTHA SWAMI Vs. NNPRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, a Konkani Brahmin of Mangalore, dined on 24 October 1920 in company with members of various communities, including three panchamas. This was reported as a caste offence by members of his caste to the defendant the Swami of Kasi Mutt, who is the recognized tribunal for deciding such matters. The defendant took care to discover the true facts of the case (Ex. 18, 20 November 1920) and interviewed several persons on be-of the plaintiff; Sreenivasa Pai and Venkata Rao first on 11 November, and again on 15th November, two Bhandarakars at about the same date; and, after 20 November a regular deputation with full instructions of all that had to be said the plaintiff's behalf. There is some suggestion that these persons instead, of stating plaintiff's case merely applied for an adjournment and fuller inquiry. This is very improbable, but the point need not be laboured because plaintiff himself sent to the defendant a document Ex. G, which is obviously the statement of his case. He admitted the defendant's right to take prompt and immediate action in the matter and did not deny the truth of the complaint made against him; but he detailed several instances of other persons infringing the rules of the caste, and evidently meant to confront the defendant with the alternatives of condoning or of condemning all the offences that were set forth.

(2.) After receipt of this document the defendant excommunicated the plaintiff by his order Ex. J. of 23 November 1920 "until further orders." Thereupon the plaintiff attempted to enter the temple frequented by his caste, and on admission being refused, launched a suit on 6th May 1921, for a declaration that the order of the defendant was illegal and the plaintiff was "in caste" (O.S. No. 52 of 1921) and another suit 22 November, 1921 for Rs. 7,500 damages on the ground that the order was illegal and libellous (O.S. No. 109 of 1921.)

(3.) The lower Court dealing with both suits in one judgment, decreed that the defendant's order was null and void (O.S. No. 52 of 1921) and plaintiff was entitled to full damages (O.S. No. 109 of 1921.)