SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1900 Supreme(Mad) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Arnold White, C.J.
O. Nagiah Bathudu and Ors.
Versus
Muthacharry
Decided On : 10.09.1900

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was not within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

Headnote:

Worship Rights - Religious Procession - I.L.R. 13 M.k 293, I.L.R. 4 M.k 315 - The court discussed the right of worship and procession in connection with idols, the discretion of the Dharmakartha, and the distinction between personal and common rights. The court held that the right claimed by the plaintiffs is not one on which a Civil Court can adjudicate.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs claimed the right to have the goddess carried in procession in front of their houses for worship, while the defendant, as the Dharmakarta of the temple, proposed to vary the customary route. The court found that the alleged practice of the procession passing through the plaintiffs' street had existed from time immemorial.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a custom that absolutely precludes the defendant from the exercise of any discretion and that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court.

Issues: The issues were whether the plaintiffs could establish the right to worship the goddess in their own street and whether the suit was within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was not one on which a Civil Court can adjudicate, and that the alleged custom did not preclude the defendant from exercising discretion.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit, holding that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was not within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

Arnold White, C.J.

1. In my judgment this suit ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the right claimed by the plaintiffs was not cognizable by a Civil Court.

2. Assuming that the suit related to a matter of which a Civil Court could take cognizance, I agree with the view taken by the learned Judge who tried the case. I think the plaintiffs failed to make out any case and that the suit was rightly dismissed.

3. I propose to deal with the case first, as the learned Judge dealt with it, that is, on the assumption that the suit was cognizable by a Civil Court.

4. The plaintiffs case was that a certain temple, of which the defendant was Dharmakarta, had been built and a goddess consecrated for the special benefit of worshippers residing in certain streets in Black Town, Madras ; that those worshippers and their descendants had contributed towards the expenses of the festivals appertaining to the goddess and enjoyed the right of having the goddess carried in procession in front of their houses in order that they might perform worship at the several stoppages ; that from time immemorial the customary route for the procession, except on certain special occasions, included a street known as Kristnaswami Covil Street, in which the plaintiffs resided; that the defendant, with a view to injure the plaintiffs and other residents in Kristnaswami Covil Street, proposed to vary the customary route by omitting therefrom the whole of the said street; and the plaintiffs claimed a declaration of their rights, an injunction that future processions should take the alleged customary route, and damages. The defendants case was that the temple was founded for the benefit of the Kamara or Panchala community of the Town of Madras ; that the right of management of the temple and its affairs is vested in the members of that community as recognised by a decree of this Court ; and that the temple was not built nor the goddess con- secrated for the benefit of worshippers residing in streets forming the alleged customary route. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs had acquired, or could acquire, any legal right by reason of any custom or practice to have the procession carried through any particular streets, and contended that the manner of conducting the processions was a matter involving religious ritual which depended on various considerations ; that the discretion of the Dharma-kartha and the sabha appointed to manage the affairs of the temple was not subject to any external influence or control; and that, in varying the route of the procession, the Dharmakartha had acted bona-fide and in the best interests of the temple.

5. There is a distinction between the case of the 1st and 5th plaintiffs, who are members of the Kamara caste for whose benefit the defendant alleges, and the plaintiffs do not appear to deny, the temple was instituted, and that of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants, who were not members of this caste but merely residents in the street in question who had been in the habit of availing themselves of the opportunity to worship when the procession passed down their streets. As regards plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4, I am clearly of opinion that they have established no right. They are not members of the Kamara caste, they have no proprietary interest in the institution, they have no voice in the appointment of the Dharmakartha, and they have no control over him. I know no principle of law upon which it can be said by custom, prescription, or otherwise, plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 have acquired any rights as against the defendant. It is not a case in which a man claims a right by custom to do a certain act. "Plaintiffs 2 to 4 claim a right by custom not merely to worship the goddess but to compel the defendant to bring the goddess past their houses in order that they may worship. As regards plaintiffs 2 to 4 the fact that they resided in the particular" street gave them the opportunity of participating in certain religious advantages which th



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top