Napier, J.

1. This an appeal from an appellate decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dismissing a suit brought by five Roman Catholic Vellalas as representatives of the Pillais and Mudalis of Vaddakankulam against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Trichinopoly, the Parish Priest of Vaddankankulam and certain Shanan Roman Catholics the last being sued as representatives of the Nadars, asking for certain reliefs in connection with the Holy Family Church situate in the above village. The reliefs may be grouped as follows:

1. A mandatory injunction to re-erect walls between what are called the two Churches in the above Church, the cause of action being the obstructing of the plaintiffs right, the obtaining an order under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the demolition of the walls, all in November 1910.

2. A declaration that the ownership of the alleged Southern Church is vested only in the so-called high caste Christians of the plaintiffs vagaira.

3. A declaration of the right of the plaintiffs vagaira alone to enter it and an order restraining other so-called low caste Christians of the vagaira of the defendants 3 to 14 from entering it.

4. An order restraining the latter from entering the altar and other peetams and restraining the Bishop and the Parish priest from allowing them to do so. (The phrase entering the altar is meaningless. Altar is probably used for Chancel).

5. A declaration of the sole right of the Pillais, Mudalis and so-called high caste Christians to perform services at the altar and join in the service of the congregation except on certain days.

6. A declaration of their sole right to conduct certain processions, have custody of the sacred images, and keys of the Church, ring the bell, etc.

2. A declaration that the vagaira of defendants 3 to 14 have no right to go in procession in palanquins in marriages through the streets inhabited by the plaintiffs and asking for appropriate injunctions in respect of the above declarations. The last claim was not argued before us but the others were pressed by Mr. Ranga Chariar on the grounds of agreement and custom. It has been a little difficult to ascertain the extent of the claims as the learned Vakil was naturally not familiar with the meaning of the words altar and pulpit and with the nature of the ceremonial and observances of the Catholic Church. He has, however, pressed those parts of the claim as have reference to the ritual as strongly as those connected with the exclusive rights in the so-called southern Church, and the custody of the whole fabric. The Bishop in his written statement has claimed that the Church fabric and site is vested in himself in trust for sacred uses and has asserted the sole right of himself and the Vicar to regulate the accommodation inside, to prescribe the part to be taken by the congregation in the services, and the ceremonies, has denied that any exclusive right or privilege can be claimed by members of any community, and has alleged that the so-called agreements have only been concessions which he has thought fit to withdraw. The Subordinate Judge who tried the case has in a judgment composed chiefly of long extracts from exhibits, sometimes inaccurately quoted, given certain reliefs which as already stated have been set aside in appeal. In arguing his case Mr. Rangachariar has relied on a Bull issued by Pope Gregory XV in 1623 recognising caste distinctions and has invited an expression from the Court as to the existence of these rights. Speaking for myself I do not propose to express any opinion on so broad a subject which has not been thoroughly argued before us and, in my opinion, does not arise. Whether the Courts have power to give declarations as between different classes of His Majestys subjects on such matters and whether any action can be founded on a disregard of such rights save as they arise out of trusts are questions on which I have serious doubts but these doubts need not be resolved here. What we have