The entitlement to first honours in a temple festival was not considered a civil right and was therefore not within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., in S.A. No. 469 of 1932 dated 14th April, 1936. The second appeal arose out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and his family were entitled to the first honours, namely, Thirtham, Thulasi and Sri Satari on the occasion of the Pavitrotsavam festival in the temple of Sri Sarangapaniswami at Kumbakonam. The plaintiffs case was that he and his family had been performing the said festival from time immemorial and that immediately after the prayers or worship are over an offering of food prepared at the plaintiffs expense is offered to the deity and after Karpoora harathi the plaintiff has to be given Thirtham, Thulasi, etc., and Sri Satari has to be placed over his head with parivattam, that is, a piece of silk cloth. The claim was thus, as stated by Venkataramana Rao, J., "rested on long standing custom and practice", and related entirely to "first honours" in connection with the festival which the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to conduct in the temple. The only question that arose before Venkataramana Rao, J., was whether the decree passed in the suit in respect of these honours was right or whether the Court had no jurisdiction to pronounce such a decree as the subject-matter of the litigation was not of the nature of a civil right and therefore not within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The learned Judge referred to several decisions bearing on the point, namely, Sri Rungachariar v. Rungasami Battachar I.L.R. (1908) Mad. 291, Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal v. Elayavalli Srinivasachariar (1913) M.W.N. 289, Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyangar (1916)31MLJ758 and Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752. He expressed the opinion that if the question were res Integra he should have been inclined to follow the observations of Sadasivier, J., in Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal v. Elayavalli Srinivasachariar (1913) M.W.N. 289, apparently referring to that learned Judges observations on pages 299 and 300. But he was of opinion that he was bound to follow the Bench decision in Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyangar (1916)31MLJ758 in which it was decided that the honours claimed were appurtenant to the right of worship and therefore the right to such honours was a civil right, it being assumed or not contested seriously in that case that the right to perform the festival was a civil right. The learned Judge however referred to Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752 also a Bench decision, which expressly dissented from the proposition laid down in Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyangar (1916)31MLJ758 as will be seen from the extract given in the judgment appealed from:

A special kind of worship, to which some dignity is attached, but no emoluments of value are attached, cannot, in our opinion, be the subject of a suit in a Civil Court. To this extent we do not agree with the decision in Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyangar (1916)31MLJ758 .

2. In these circumstances it is not possible to say why the learned Judge thought that he was bound to follow the Bench decision in Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Lakshmi Sadagopa Aiyangar (1916)31MLJ758 and not the Bench decision in Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752 which was a later decision and more or less coincided with his own view on the subject. Whatever that may be, we have to decide the question whether the right, that is claimed in the present suit, to first Thirtham, Thulasi and the placing of Sri Safari on the head, is a civil right which can be agitated in a Civil Court and decreed by a Civil Court. We are of opinion that the view enunciated in Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752 is right. It is not disputed that where a religious office is claimed any emoluments attached thereto may be sued for in a Civil Court either with the office or without