Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1946 Supreme(SC) 20

PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACMILLAN, LORD DU PARCO AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
HIS HOLINESS PERIA KOVIL KELVI APPAN THIRUVENKATA RAMANUJA PEDDA JIYYANGARLU VARLU - Appellant
Versus
PRATHIVATHI BHAYANKARAM VENKATACHARLU - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : May 13, 1946.

Advocates:
Solicitors for appellant : Lambert & White.
Solicitor for respondents Nos. 6, 7, 10-14, 16 and 20-21: Harold Shephard.

The right to participate in temple worship does not entitle a worshipper to use a ritual different from the one established by custom in that temple. Exclusive rights to conduct services according to a specific sect's ritual are upheld to prevent disturbances and maintain religious order.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 9 - Cognizability of suits - Religious disputes - Right to regulate temple rituals - Custom and practice - Exclusive right to use specific invocations and benedictions - Concurrent use of rival rituals - Effect on public peace - The right to regulate the conduct of services in temples depends on established custom and practice. Where documentary evidence establishes that a specific ritual has been exclusively followed, the court will protect that right to ensure the orderly and reverent conduct of worship.

(B) Right to participate in worship - The right to participate in the worship of a temple does not necessarily carry with it the right to insist on using a ritual other than the ritual in use in that temple. Conforming to the established ritual, or remaining silent, is a condition for participation when a specific sect's ritual prevails.

(C) Civil Court Jurisdiction - A suit relating to the right to regulate religious services and the use of specific rituals in a temple is cognizable by a civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not barred merely because it involves religious disputes.

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between two sects of a religious community regarding the performance of services in several temples. The dominant sect, represented by the high priest, claimed the exclusive right to lead the services and use their specific invocation (manthram) and benedictory verses. The rival sect claimed a concurrent right to recite their own invocation and observe their own ritual simultaneously. The lower courts had reached conflicting conclusions based on the interpretation of documentary evidence regarding the established custom of the suit temples.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the right to regulate temple services is governed by custom. Documentary evidence from the late 18th and 19th centuries, including administrative orders and previous judicial decisions, indicated that the rival sect was prohibited from using its own invocation in the suit temples. The court held that the right to participate in worship does not grant a right to use a different ritual, and simultaneous use of competing rituals would likely lead to disturbances and breaches of peace. Consequently, the dominant sect's right to the exclusive use of its invocation and benediction was upheld.

Issues: Whether the dominant sect had the exclusive right to conduct the temple services using its specific invocation and benediction, or whether the rival sect possessed a concurrent right to use its own rituals simultaneously during the service.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that where custom establishes a specific ritual for a temple, that ritual must be followed exclusively to maintain order and reverence. The ability of members of a different sect to participate in the service is not negated by the requirement to conform to the temple's established ritual. Simultaneous recitation of rival invocations is inconsistent with the nature of the service and contrary to established usage, and such competition often leads to violent conduct and breaches of peace.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document