The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Evidence Act, Section 101, in the context of customary rights and the burden of proof in establishing access rights to a temple. The court emphasized the need to consider the general religious sentiment prevailing in the community and the unreasonableness of imposing an onerous burden on caste Hindus to prove their right to worship in a temple.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They brought the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen as representatives of the Ilaivaniyar community in the village of Panakudy. The defendants represent the Brahmins, Mudaliars and Pillars in that village. The plaintiffs pray for the following main reliefs:

(a) a declaration as against the defendants and their communities, Brahmins, Vellalas and Mudaliars of the right of the plaintiffs and of their castemen residing at Panakudy to go so far as the Sabapathy Sannadhi and as far as the front of the Pulliarai in the Amman Sannadhi in the said Panakudy Sri Ramalingaswami Temple and worship the Swamies and Amman and to receive prasatham, etc., after performing Abishekam, Archanai, Neivediam, etc., during the Mandagapadi occasions and on ordinary occasions;" and

(b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their community from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs and their castemen in their performing the above acts claiming the said right by virtue of such declaration.

2. The principal compartments of an ordinary Siva temple are (1) the Garbagriham where the principal fixed image is established and which is the holiest part of the temple; (2) the next outer hall called the Arthamantapam (Half-hall) and (3) a further outer hall which is called the Maha Mantapam or Big Hall. As the principal image usually faces east, these three rooms or halls lie usually east of one another. (In the Siva Temples the big outer Nanthi, the Flag staff and the Balipitam lie still further to the east). The two outer Mantapams (the Artha Mantapam and the Maha Mantapam) are, under a more elaborate classification subdivided into fractional portions. The Artha Mandapam is divided into (a) Antharala (b) Mukha Mantapa (c) Dwara Mantapa (d) Snapana Mantapa and (e) Vrisha Mantapa. The Maha Mantapam is subdivided into (a) Bahir Mantapam and (b) Nritha Mantapam. In the smaller temples (like the one in dispute), the only practical distinction is between the Garbhagriham and the portion east of 1ts gate up to the Flag staff so far as access of caste Hindus is concerned. The technical names "Artha Mantapa " and "Maha Mantapa," etc., do not at all appear in the evidence in the suit and though slight mention appears of a Thorana light and Thornakal, the learned District Judge is unable to come to any definite conclusion as to what is meant by these words. It appears from the evidence of the defence 9th witness, that " all those who can enter the temple " (that is, west of the Flag staff) " can go as far as the Sabapathy Sannadhi," that is, up to the gate of the Garbhagriham and that no sub-division is made of the space into Artha Mantapa, Maha Mantapa, Nritha Mandapa, etc, as regards the right of access. The plaintiffs prayers are substantially for a declaration that they are entitled to stand for purposes of worship in what I shall call the outer Mantapam (that is, the hall between the Flag Staff and the Garbhagriham) and for an injunction against their being ejected therefrom.

3. It is the case of both parties that so far as the (Garbhagriham) is concerned, it is only the Brahmins who belong to the temple priest sect that could stand inside it for the purpose of worship. Ordinary Brahmins, Pillais and Mudahars are entitled to worship from the outer Mantapam.

4. The Plaintiffs allege in their plaints that they belong to a caste which " according to immemorial custom and according to Hindu Shastras " (see 4th paragraph of the plaint) were entitled to worship standing in the outer Mantapam and that in November 1907, some Pillars and Mudaliars began to obstruct the members of the plaintiffs community from standing in that Mantapam on the ground that the plaintiffs community have no right to go westward of the Dwajasthambam or the Flag staff. The lower appellate Courts conclusions might be shortly stated thus (using mostly, its own language)." The plaintiffs ha