The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for title to an office must also include a claim for possession of the properties attaching to the office.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This reference arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga to establish the title claimed by him to the office of Pandarasannadhi, or mahant, of the Tiruvannamalai math in the Ramnad District. In his plaint the appellant asked the Court to pass a decree in his favour for inter alia the following reliefs:

(a) Declaring that the first defendant is not entitled to be the Pandarasannadhi of the Thiruvannamalai Athinam and (by way of consequential relief) ejecting him from the office of Pandarasannadhi of the Athinam and restoring its possession to the plaintiff as the only Thambiran of the Athinam qualified and entitled to its headship or at least to be in charge of the math and its properties till a new Pandarasannadhi comes."

"(b) Restraining the first defendant by a perpetual injunction from in any way interfering with the spiritual or secular affairs of the Athinam.

2. The respondent was the first defendant, who claims to be the lawful holder of the office. It is admitted that he is in possession of the properties, but notwithstanding the terms of paragraph (a) of the prayer the appellant said that he was not asking for an order for possession because "the servants and tenants" on the lands were prepared to hand over possession and pay rent to the holder of the office. In addition to denying the right claimed by the appellant, the respondent, relying on the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, averred that the suit was not maintainable because the appellant had failed to ask for a decree directing that possession of the math properties be given to him. The Subordinate Judge held that this plea was well founded and dismissed the suit. The appellant appealed to this Court and in due course the case came on for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of King and Patanjali Sastri, JJ. In consequence of the conflict between the decisions of this Court in Rathnasabapathi Pillay v. Ramaswami Aiyar (1910)20MLJ301 and Swaniinatha Aiyar v. Ramier AIR1925Mad421 , the learned Judges have referred to a Full Bench the issue whether the suit is barred by-reason of the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.

3. When the case was before King and Patanjali Sastri, JJ., the learned advocate for the appellant applied for and obtained an order permitting the amendment of the plaint by the omission of the words, "or at least to be in charge of the mutt and its properties till a new Pandarasannadhi comes" from the prayer for a declaration. The prayer for a perpetual injunction stands, but Mr. Sampath Aiyangar has stated that he is willing to waive this relief also should it be deemed to be in the way of his clients success in the appeal. In these circumstances the Court will treat the appellants claims to be for (1) a declaration of his title to the office and (2) possession of the office but not of the properties attaching to it.

4. In Rathnasabapathy Pillai v. Ramaswami Aiyar (1910)20MLJ301 , a trustee of a temple who had been ousted by his co-trustees sued for a declaration that his dismissal from the trusteeship was invalid, and for an injunction restraining his co-trustees and the temple committee from interfering with the exercise of his rights as a trustee. There was no prayer for consequential relief in the nature of an order for possession against the co-trustees. In these circumstances the Court (Sankaran Nair and Krishnaswami Aiyar, JJ.,) held that the suit was not maintainable. In that case the plea was raised that the lands of the temple were in the physical possession of the tenants and the plaintiff could not get such possession himself : but it was held that the fact that the lands were in the physical possession of the tenants did not excuse the plaintiff from suing for possession.

5. Swaminatha Aiyar v. Ramier AIR1925Mad421 , was decided by Spencer, J., who was then officiating as Chief Justice and Srinivasa Aiyang