The main legal point established is that Section 73(3) of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act does not bar suits that seek to declare rights against third parties unrelated to the administration or management of the temple.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The learned District Judge has in respect of almost every question of fact decided in favour of the plaintiffs, but has come to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable by reason of Clause 3 of Section 73 of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act II of 1927). The question to be decided in the appeal is, whether the view of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by the provision referred to above, can be sustained.

2. The suit has been brought by certain five worshippers in the Sri Ranganathaswami temple at Srirangam with the con sent obtained of the Board of Commissioners. The object of the suit is to get a declaration in respect of a class of persons known as Sukhavasis. The plaintiffs complain that these Sukhavas is have been asserting a claim to a certain fixed share of the Prasadams offered to the deity, and that in assertion of that right, they have gone the length of claiming a cash pay ment in lieu of their share of the Prasadam when that is not available. The questions which the learned Judge had to decide were: (1) whether the Sukhavasis had been in enjoy ment of the allowances, as alleged by them, continuously for such a period, as would serve to raise a presumption of a legal origin, and (2) whether the emoluments were attached to the performance of any religious office, service or duty in the temple in question. On both these matters, the learned District Judge in a lucid and closely reasoned judgment, has recorded findings, as already stated, against the defendants. We may incidentally observe here that the word Sukhavasi means one who lives in comfort without any particular employment (Tamil Lexicon published by the University of Madras).

3. The respondents counsel has not challenged these findings of fact, and the question that now has to be decided therefore is one of law, namely, whether or not the suit is barred under Section 73(3) of the Act.

4. The lower Court has, in our opinion, been misled by the clumsy drafting of some of the paragraphs in the plaint. There were three sets of defendants impleaded first, the trustees of the temple; secondly, the members of the Trichinopoly Hindu Devasthanam Committee; and thirdly, the Sukhavasis. On a close examination of the plaint, it is perfectly clear that it is not sought to fetter the discretion of the trustees in doling out the offerings to such persons as they think deserving; the Sukhavasis are under no particular disability, and they may, like any other worshippers or pilgrims, receive, and be given the Prasadam. It is the right put forward by the Sukhavasis to a fixed share that has been objected to. To claim a right to charity is a contradiction in terms, and what the Sukhavasis have been getting according to them, are not charitable doles but perquisites, which could be claimed as a matter of right, attached as they are, to the performance of certain services. Unfortunately however, the wording of the plaint seems to suggest that the suit was intended to prevent the Sukhavasis getting any charity whatsoever, as though they were marked out for some special penalty.

5. A brief reference to the facts that immediately preceded the institution of the suit, will serve to make the prayers in the plaint clear. The Sukhavasis are of the Vadagalai persuasion, and their claim to a fixed share was generally looked on with disfavour by the Tengalais. The plaintiffs suggest that in dealing with the claim put forward by the Sukhavasis, the trustees or the members of the committee are generally swayed by sectarian motives. It seems unnecessary to go into this question, nor would it be right on the material before us to say that the plaintiffs complaint is justified. What really happened however was this: In several judicial proceedings the right of the Sukhavasis was negatived. In 1926 the Religious Endowments Board likewise refused to recognise the right. In 1927 the Devasthanam Committee, when considering the budget proposals,