The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in matters relating to the established usage of a religious institution, including disputes over the appointment of persons to participate in religious duties, which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

The first defendant in O.S. 550 of 1977, District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein under the following circumstances. According to the case of the first respondent, in Sri R.anganathaswami temple at Srirangam from time immemorial, the recitation of Divya Prabandam before Sri Ranganathaswami by Adyabaga Goshti had been in vogue whenever the deity is taken out in procession outside Aryabatal vasal and for this mirasi service, the service holders had been remunerated and this mirasi right had been vested in the family of the first respondent and his ancestors. The first respondent claimed that his ancestors and others were doing this service and receiving the perquisites and pecuniary remuneration for several generations and this is in the nature of a hereditary right and mirasi service. It was also claimed that the first respondent had the right of appointing competent persons for the recitation of Divya Prabandam in the Goshti and that the ancient and established custom and practice obtaining was that the first respondent should exercise the right to appoint persons for the recitation of Divya Prabandam and also to receive remuneration therefor. The first respondent pleaded that at the instigation of the appellant, the second respondent hereux had purported to question the sole and exclusive mirasi right of the first respondent and his exercise thereof and attempts were also made to introduce an innovation by allowing third parties to join the Adayabaga Goshti against the established usage and customs and that, according to the first respondent, constituted an infringement of his right. The first respondent, therefore, claimed that it had become necessary for him to establish the hereditary right of his family in respect of Adayabaga Goshti and for restraining the appellant and others from interfering with the enjoyment of that right by the first respondent and others.

2. In the written statement and additional written statement filed by the appellant, the custom and practice put forth by the first respondent that the members of his family and their ancestors have done the mirasi service and acquired a hereditary right to do so was denied. The Adyabaga Goshti, according to the appellant functioned independently and not under the control of either the first respondent or his family members. The appellant claimed that he had been functioning as the Head of the Adyabaga Goshti without reference to the first respondent that third parties had been allowed to do the service contrary to the custom and usage was denied. The appellant also disputed the claim of the first respondent on the grpund that during the lifetime of the father of the first respondent, he could not project any mirasi rights which had not been put forth by his father. An objection was also raised that the suit instituted by the first respondent was not maintainable in the Civil Court and was barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the written statement and additional written statement filed by the second respondent, the claim of the first respondent was disputed and the temple claimed that it had the final and decisive say in the composition and constitution of the Goshti. Similar defences were raised by the fourth respondent in the written statement filed by him.

3. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, issue No. 1 was framed in the suit with reference to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit. A joint memo was filed by the parties to the suit inviting the Court to give a finding on the question of jurisdiction. The learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli on a consideration of the plaint allegations and the defence raised in the written statements held that the right sought to be agitated in the suit did not relate to any office or