Suit for declaration of right of right to honours in temple revision held maintainable.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14. 2004 rendered in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 by the Court of District Munsif, Melur.

2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No.144 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Melur for declaration of their right to enjoy the benefits of the honour in the temple of Sri Periyapanaiyur Ayyanar, Attapatti by rotation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs. It further comes to be seen that during the course of trial, the defendants have filed a petition in I.A.No.426 of 2004 under Order 14, Rule 5 and Section 151, C.P.C. praying to frame an additional issue relating to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suits in respect of Honours in the temple and the trial Court having conducted a thorough trial into the matter, wherein on behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses would be examined for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 4 and nine documents would be marked for documentary evidence as Exs.A.1 to A.9 and on behalf of the defendants, ten witnesses would be examined for oral evidence as D.Ws.1 to 10 and forty documents would be marked as Exs.B.1 to B.40 for documentary evidence and in consideration of all these materials placed on record, the trial Court besides holding that the suit is maintainable has also decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants have come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Revision.

3. During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since the suit is filed regarding the religious honours, the same is not maintainable before a Civil Court and would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in Sri Sinha Ramanuja Jeer alias Sri Vanamamalai Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer alias Emberumanar Jeer and others , AIR 1961 SC 1720, wherein it has been held:

“In view of S.9, C.P.C., Court cannot entertain a suit which is not of a civil nature. Prima facie suits raising questions of religious rites and ceremonies only are not maintainable in a Civil Court, for they do not deal with legal rights of parties. But the explanation to the Section implies two things, namely, (i) a suit for an office is a suit of a civil nature; and (ii) it does not cease to be one even if the said right depends entirely upon a decision of a question as to the religious rites or ceremonies. It implies further that questions as to religious rites or ceremonies cannot independently of such a right form the subject-matter of a civil suit. Honours shown or precedence given to religious dignitaries when they attend religious ceremonies in a temple cannot be placed on a higher footing than the religious rites or ceremonies for they are integral part of the said rites or ceremonies in the sense that the said honours are shown to persons partaking in the ceremonies, Prima facie honours, such as who is to stand in the ghoshti, in what place, who is to get the tulasi, etc. in which order, and similar others, cannot be considered to be part of the remuneration or perquisites attached to an office for they are only tokens of welcome of an honoured guest within the precincts of a temple.”

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further cite a judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court way back in the year 1932, in Chitti Babu Mudaliar v. A.Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and another, AIR 1933 Madras 264, wherein it has been held:

“ .. the claim of the plaintiff was only one for mere honours and as such it did not lie and further as there was no mutuality of obligations, the plaintiff could not be said to have any