Claim of temple being public temple to be proved by evidence.

Bellie, J.

1. The plaintiff who won his suit in the trial Court but lost it in the first appellate court has preferred this second appeal.

2. The suit relates to Archaka right in a temple. According to the plaintiff his family has been doing archaka service in the Selvavinayagar Temple situate at Market St., Panrutti, from time immemorial and he himself has been doing that service for past 40 years first as an agent of his brother Muthu Gurukkal and then in his own right and he was paid a monthly salary of Rs. 18. He was also getting not less than Rs. 50 per mensem by way of kanikkais from devotees and Kattalaidars. While so the first defendant who is looking after the affairs of the temple without any reason pre vented him from doing his services by the end of Thai, 1977 and appointed the second defendant in his place. He sent a notice to the defendants on 1.3.1977 for which the first defendant sent a reply with untenable contentions. In these allegations the plaintiff has prayed for declaration that he has right to do service in the temple as hereditary archaka, and to injunct the first defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs performing the said right or alternatively to direct the defendants to restore the defendants to pay mesne profits to the plaintiff from the date of plaint.

3. The first defendant denies that the plaintiffs family was doing archaka service from time immemorial and the plaintiff has been doing that service for 40 years. According to him the archaka service in the suit temple is not hereditary one. The archakas were appointed by the trustees from time to time and the archakas are liable to be dismissed for service when they are found guilty. It is contended that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the family of first defendants father-in-law Masilamani Pillai. The plaintiff was doing archaka service for various temples and because of this he was not able to do poojas in the suit temple regularly and aggrieved by this the father-in-law of the first defendant removed him from service. As the suit temple is a private temple and as it does not come under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, he need not give notice to the plaintiff before terminating of service. The plaintiff being not a hereditary archaka he is not entitled for the declaration as such.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement supporting the contention of the first respondent. First defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his Legal Representatives were impleaded as defendant 3 to 5. They too filed a written statement supporting the case of the first defendant.

5. On these pleading the trial District Munsif of Cuddalore held that the plaintiff has proved that he is a hereditary archaka and that the first defendant has no right to remove the plaintiff from service. On these findings it decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff has right to the office as hereditary archaka in the suit temple and also decreed restraining the defendants 2 to 5 from interfering with the plaintiffs performing the archaka service in the suit temple.

6. Defendant 2 and 3 appealed and the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore (first appellate court), did not agree with the findings of the trial Court and instead it held temple and the defendants are not bound by any rules and Regulations and the relationship between the first defendant and the plaintiff was that of master and servant and that the plaintiff has not proved that in law he has any right and as such it cannot be said that his dismissal from the archaka service is illegal, and thus finding the first appellate Court set aside the decree passed by the trial Court.

7. A cross objection filed by the plaintiff against the trial Court disallowing his claim for mesne profits was dismissed.

8. In the second appeal, R.S. Venkatachari, learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant, contended that it is illegal that the first defendant has prevented the plaintiff from doin