Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court.

JUDGEMENT :- The plaintiffs in O.S. No.102 of 1975 in the court of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram are the appellants.

2. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to take Arulmigu Mangaiperumal deity in procession on the tenth day of Chitrotsavam festival and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiffs in taking the deity in procession and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant and his son to take the deity from the sanctum sanctorum for the said procession on every Chitra Pournami day.

3. In Uthirakosamangai village, there is a temple called Mangaleswari Samastha Mangalanathaswami temple The temple is managed by the Raja of Ramnad as a hereditary trustee. In the same temple, there is a deity of Vishnu called Mangai Perumal. In the month of Chitrai i.e April-May every year, a festival for ten days is celebrated in the temple. On the tenth day festival which corresponds to the Chitra Pournami day, the plaintiffs claim, that they used to take the said Mangai Perumal deity from the main temple in the morning in Kuthirai vaganam to another temple called Govindasami ternple belonging to the plaintiffs. In Govindasami temple, pooja and other services would be done to the deity and the deity would be returned to the main temple in the evening. The plaintiffs claim that they had been exercising this right for a long time from time immemorial. In or about 1973, there appears to have been a faction between the plaintiffs, who are Yadavas, and Pillaimars in the said village and the main temple under the management of Raja of Ramnad is predominantly worshipped by the Pillai community. As their right to worship in this customary way was denied, the plaintiffs came forward with the present suit.

4. The defendant denied the existence of any such custom or any right in the Yadavas taking the Mangai Perumal deity to the Govindasami temple. The defendant also contended that the claim of the plaintiffs was not a civil right which could be adjudicated by a civil court.

5. The learned District Munsif, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was a civil right and that the jurisdiction of the civil court was not excluded. A decree was, therefore, granted in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was only in the nature of a right to perform a ritual and that the civil court cannot interfere in such matters. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. The present second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

6. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the right to take the deity in procession to the Govindasami temple in the present case was a civil right and that the civil court had jurisdiction. He relied on several decisions to be noticed presently. For the respondent, Mr. Narasimhan contended that there was no right to take any deity from the main temple to the Govindasami temple, that there was no proof of the custom as pleaded and that the civil court did not, therefore, have jurisdiction.

7. It is not in dispute that if the present right claimed by the plaintiffs can be characterised as a 'ritual', then the plaintiffs cannot seek their reliefs in civil court and they will have to go before the appropriate authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The word 'ritual' means

"pertaining or relating to, connected with, rites". The word 'rite' is 'a formal procedure or act in a religious or other solemn observance'. The question whether a right to carry the deity and worship it is a civil right or not has been examined in decisions of this court.

8. In Narayana Mudali v. Periakalathi Mudali, AIR 1939 Mad 494 the question relating to an observance known as Kappu Kattu has been dealt with. Kappu Kattu is a rite whereby unmarried boys of a p