The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of a hereditary office and the right to bring a suit when the performance of duties is interfered with are governed by the provisions of Article 124 of the Limitation Act and established legal principles.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal came in the first instance before Venkataramana Rao, J, but as the, learned Judge was of the, opinion that its decision involved the consideration of the judgments of this Court in two cases which seemingly were in conflict he adjourned the hearing in order that the appeal might be placed before a Bench. The two decisions referred to by the learned Judge were decisions of Division Benches and in consequence it was deemed advisable that the appeal should be decided by a Full Bench. The two cases referred to by the learned Judge are Ponnu Nadar v. Kumaru Reddiar (1935)69MLJ739 and Appa Rao v. Secretary of State for India in Council AIR1938Mad193 . They will be referred to in detail presently, but as it appears to us that this appeal involves the consideration of facts which are not common to the other two cases it is necessary to set out in Some detail what the fasts are.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was fried by the first respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram for an injunction restraining the trustee and the archakas of the Sri Bhuvarahaswami temple at Srimushnam from interfering with the performance of the duties of his office of the mantrapushpam of the temple. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif, but his decision was set aside on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore and the first respondent was held, to be entitled to the relief sought by him. The appellants are the archakas of the temple. The office of mdntrapushpam is an hereditary one and the first respondent succeeded to it on the death of his father in 1906. He is also the Holder of two other hereditary offices in this temple - the offices of kaisika puranam and arulappadu. The appeal is only concerned with the office of mantrapushpam. The holder of the office of mantrapushpam has the right to receive from archakas flowers and tulasi leaves for the purpose of consecration, which is performed by the recitation of mantrams by the mantrapushpakar while he is holding them. After the consecration the flowers and tulasi leaves are handed to an archaka who then proceeds to offer them to the deity. The emoluments of the office of mantrapushpam in this temple consist of a ball of looked rice per diem and twelve annas per month. The first respondent is a Vadagalai and the archakas of this temple are all Thengalais; and here we have the cause of the present litigation and incidentally of other suits. The first respondent has never performed the duties of the mantrapushpam and the reason why he has not do ne so is also traceable to the animosity between these two sects. The Subordinate Judge has in fact held that the office of mantrapushpam has been in abeyance for over forty years. In 1918 the first respondent decided to take action with the object of preventing interference with the performance, of the duties of his office and in that year he filed O.S. No. 66 of 1918 in the Court of the District Munsif, Vriddhachalam. In that suit the respondent asked for an injunction, restraining the trustee from interfering with the performance by him of the duties cast upon him as the holder of all the three offices. The District Munsif granted him a mandatory injunction on the 30th June, 1920. The trustee appealed to the Subordinate Judge, but the only result was, that the injunction, was changed from mandatory to prohibitory in character. In these proceedings the archakas were not made parties. In 1922 the first respondent filed O.S. No. 178 of 1922 against the trustee and the archakas for an injunction preventing them from interfering with him in the performance of his office of kaisika puranam but in this suit he asked for no relief in respect, of obstruction in the performance o the duties devolving on him as the holder of the, other two offices. The District Munsif granted him an injunction on the 23rd July, 1924, and this was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal on the