JUDGMENT :- The plaintiff is the appellant. He sought for a declaration of his right to run the customary bull race before the Gangaiyammal temple and for a permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right. His claim was that the bull race and a festival connected with it are conducted in the village during the month of Thai-Masi every year. According to the plaintiff, the right and the privilege to conduct the race and the festival belong only to him that this right was in the past exercised by his father. It was stated that the plaintiff usually gives wide publicity to the race and the festival in the neighboring villages and also fixes a date therefore. The residents of the village and the neighboring villages participate therein.

Before the race commences, the plaintiff has pooja performed in the temple, breaks the first ceremonial coconut and drives the bull first in the race. He claims this as a hereditary right. It was alleged that the defendants some of whom are residents of other villages and one who has recently settled down in this village attempted to prevent the exercise of the right as claimed and it is for that reason that the suit was laid. The defendant's contention denied the right claimed by the plaintiff. It was claimed that one Buddappa Naidu alone had this customary and hereditary right. After him his son Dasariappa and after him his daughter's son, one Krishnappa Naidu, were exercising the right. It was contended that the Krishnappa Naidu is a necessary party to the suit. It was also claimed that the right the establishment of which was sought is not one of the civil nature within the meaning of S. 9, C.P. Code and that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

2. The learned District Munsif found upon the evidence that the right set up by the defendant in Krishnappa Naidu was not established and that in any event, it was only the defendants who caused obstruction to the exercise of the plaintiff's right, which was also found upon the evidence. Krishnappa Naidu was held to be not a necessary party. But nevertheless the learned District Munsiff in dealing with the question of jurisdiction, merely stated that though the plaintiff has proved his right to conduct his festival, there was no evidence to show that it is of a civil nature and proceeded to dismiss the suit.

3. The plaintiff appealed. The learned District Judge found that there was ample evidence to show that it was the plaintiff and his father who were exercising the right in question for several years past. The defendants' contentions to the contrary were rejected. But upon the question whether the suit is maintainable the learned District Judge held that as the plaintiff did not claim to have any right to any office in the temple in question, and such a right cannot be said to form part of the worship in the temple, the right sought to be agitated is not within the purview of S. 9. It upheld the decision of the court below.

4. The short question in this second appeal is whether the right claimed is not one of a civil nature an adjudication of which is competent under S. 9. C.P. Code Sec. 9 is in very broad terms. It states that all suits of a civil nature are within the jurisdiction of the court, except those of which cognisance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The explanation to this section states that such a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites and ceremonies. The explanation certainly does not confine the limits of the nature of suits contemplated by the main section. What the Explanation states is only that though religious rites and ceremonies may form the basis of a right that is claimed, such right being a right to property or to office, a suit to establish such right would be a suit of a civil nature. The section takes within its broa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document