TIRU KRISHNAMA CHARIAR Vs. KRISHNASAWMI TATA CHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras rejecting a plaint under the 82nd section of the Code of Civil Procedure as containing no cause of action, a proceeding equivalent to what in this country would be called judgment on demurrer. The only question before their Lordships is whether or not the plaint discloses any cause of action. Of course we have nothing to do with the question whether the cause of action, if any is stated, be well founded, or what may be the merits of the case. The declaration is by a large number of persons belonging to the Tenkalai sect against other persons belonging to the Vadakalai Section The substance of the plaint, which undoubtedly is not very clear, may be thus stated: It begins by declaring that the Plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the Adhyapaka Mirass of reciting certain religious texts, hymns, or chants in a certain pagoda and its dependencies, and deny the right of the Defendants to recite them. Then comes an allegation which appears important: " The Plaintiffs and the Brahmins of the Plaintiffs' Tenkalai sect have been for a long time past and up to this day discharging all the duties appertaining to the said Adhyapaka Mirass right, and enjoying the incomes of the Adhyapakam, save those mentioned in Schedules B. and C." The plaint goes on to allege that the Defendants, holding the office of Dharmakarta of the pagoda, in combination with other persons in rivalry with the Plaintiffs, recited the Vadakalai invocations, chants, and other religious prayers, the exclusive right to recite which was incident to the Plaintiffs' Adhyapaka Mirass; that thereupon a complaint was preferred to the magistrate and a report made, and for a time the Defendants ceased to recite the chant and prayers in question, but that they again wrongfully recited them, and injured the exclusive right of the Plaintiffs and others to recite them; but there is no allegation that the Plaintiffs did not themselves perform or were prevented from performing these rights. On the contrary, the allegation is that they did perform them. Section 6 goes on to say: " The Defendants having withheld the payment to the Plaintiffs of some of the several incomes of the Adhyapaka Mirass due to the Plaintiffs in the said Devaraja Swamis Pagoda, as well as in all the Sannidhis attached to it, the Plaintiffs instituted suit No. 66 of 1865, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Conjeveram, against the Defendants, and this litigation went up as far as the High Court, and continued until March, 1873, when a decision was passed in favour of the Plaintiffs." The plaint further alleges (and this is the present cause of action), " The Defendants have withheld the payment to the Plaintiffs and the others of the Tenkalai sect of the amount of income mentioned in Schedule C. for the six years from the date of the said suit No. 66 up to this day, to which the Plaintiffs and the others of the Tenkalai sect are entitled, as also of the incomes which are mentioned in Schedule B., and which were being enjoyed by the Plaintiffs and the others of the Tenkalai sect from the date of the said suit No. 66 until the final decree was passed by the High Court, save such as are now being enjoyed. They have also withheld from the Plaintiffs and the others of the Tenkalai sect the honours mentioned in Schedule A. from April, 1873." There follows a prayer that the Court will pass a decree directing the Defendants and others to abstain from reciting, and establishing the exclusive right of the Plaintiffs, and also seeking to recover the value of various items stated in the schedules. Schedule C, which is to be found at the end of the schedule attached to the plaint, is in these terms: " Amount due for six years from October, 1870, up to the current month at the annual rate of Rs. 57. 5a. 9p., as mentioned in the decree in the original suit No. 66 of 1865 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Conjeveram, Rs. 344. 2a. 6p." On reference to the record, this suit appears to have been brought by substantially the same Plaintiffs (with some changes) against substantially the same Defendants. The Munsif, before whom the case was originally tried, affirmed the claim of the Plaintiffs to the Adhyapakam Mirass, and decreed that the sum of Rs. 57. 5a. 9p., as wages for the duty performed, should be paid to them by the Defendants, these " wages " being in fact the money value placed by the Court on certain payments in kind chiefly in the shape of food.

(2.) ON appeal this decision of the Munsif was reversed by the District Judge, being the first Court of appeal, on the ground that no suit would lie in respect of the matter complained of. His decision was reversed by the High Court of Madras, who remanded the case, observing," The claim is for a specific pecuniary benefit to which Plaintiffs declare themselves entitled on condition of reciting certain hymns. There can exist no doubt that the right to such benefits is a question which the Courts are bound to entertain, and cannot cease to be such a question, because claimed on account of some service connected with religion. If to determine the right to such pecuniary benefit it becomes necessary to determine incidentally the right to perform certain religious services, we know of no principle which would exonerate the Court from considering and deciding the point." In pursuance of this judgment, which appears to their Lordships to be perfectly correct, the cause was again tried by the Court of first appeal, which somewhat increased the amount that the Munsif had given. The High Court upon further appeal affirmed the judgment of the Munsif, re-establishing the amount by way of annual payment at Rs. 57. 5a. 9p. It therefore appears that the Plaintiffs in the present suit, having recovered in the former suit up to the date of the commencement of that suit the sum of Rs. 57 for certain services performed, are now seeking to recover the amount of wages that have accrued due to them for six years since the date of that suit at the same annual amount in respect of the same services which they allege themselves to have continued to perform, their performance not having been prevented, although possibly to a certain extent interfered with, by the Defendants. So much with respect to Schedule C.

(3.) THE judgment of the High Court, now appealed against, which rejects this plaint, is in these terms: