Judgement

Appeal (No. 33 of 1943) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 18, 1937) which varied a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor (March 31, 1925)-

The suit out of which this appeal arose related mainly to a dispute between two sections of Vaishnavite Brahmins, the Tengalais (southerners), represented by the appellant (plaintiff), and the Vadagalais (northerners), represented by the con testing respondents (defendants), as to their rights in the performance of the Prabanda Sevakalam and the recitation of Sthothrapatams (Sanskrit verses sung in praise of God) in respect of the Adhaypakam office (to which appertains the right of reciting Prabandam) in the suit Devasthanams. The most important question was whether the Tengalais had the exclusive right of conducting the Sevakalam, insisting that only their manthram and not the Vadagalais manthram should be recited at the beginning of the service. The High Court (Madhavan Nair and Stodart JJ.) held, inter alia, that the evidence supported the view that the practice was that the Vadagalai manthram was used by the Vadagalais side by side with the Tengalai manthram before the recitation of the Prabandam.

1946. Jan. 22, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30. Sir Herbert Cunliffe K.C. and Subba Row for the appellant. The questions involved in this appeal relate to the rites and ceremonies to be observed at the worship in the temples of Tirumalai and Tirupathi. The Tengalais have always been the predominant sect Thiruvengadachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariar (( 1915) Mad. W. N. 281, 284-5.). The appellant has established his right as the head of the Tengalai order having its seat in these temples to the position of High Priest, and, as such, to lead the services from beginning to end and to call on the congregation to invoke the Tengalai guru or saint both in the opening Tengalai verse and in the benedictory stanzas—the nine closing verses of the service. That, it is submitted, is no longer in dispute. Having established that positive right, the appellant is entitled to be protected by the court in its exercise. He is not protected in its exercise if when he calls on the congregation to invoke the Tengalai guru part of the congregation are at liberty ordinarily to invoke a different saint. He is also not protected in its exercise if the chanting of the rival ritual leads to disturbance of the reverent worship, to ill-feeling and to breaches of the peace, which the history of the case shows it does, and, it is submitted, inevitably must, lead to, religious feeling and human nature being what they are. The High Court have not given sufficient attention to the rights which the appellant has established; it is his exclusive right to call on the particular guru at the opening and close of the service. Next, the appellant having that right to call on the congregation to do certain things, it is for the Vadagalais to establish that they are entitled to refuse to obey that course and to chant rival ritual at the same time. The Vadagalais have entirely failed to establish any such right.

The claim of the appellant that the congregation shall either follow the Tengalai form or be silent—shall not actively and audibly disobey him—is both his right and is the established practice, and in that connexion reliance is placed on a number of decisions in cases which are directly in point and decide that the Vadagalais are not entitled to use their own invocation and ritual in these temples (a) Copy of a document approved in the Huzur, dated 1795, and prohibiting the utterance of Ramanuja Dayapathram in the Tiruchanoor temple (Exhibit A). (b) Takid from the Collector of North Arcot, 1832 (Exhibit H) which ordered that " Ramanuja Dayapatra Marithram should " be redited in their respective houses and that nothing contrary " should be done.1 (c) Judgment of the District Munsif of Tirupathi in 1889 in R. S. No. 447 of 1887 (Exhibit R). (d) Judgment of the District Court, No