Back
1922 Supreme(Mad) 273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Golla Chakrapani
Versus
Katneni Lakshmaperumallu And
Decided On : 3 November, 1922
The plaintiff did not have the legal right to remove and replace the idol in the village temple.
Headnote:
idol - temple - The plaintiff cannot sue to establish his right to remove an idol from the temple of his village and replace it with a new one made by himself.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to establish his right to remove a cracked idol from the village temple and replace it with a new one made by himself. The temple had no trustees or property and was referred to as the temple of the villagers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff did not have the right to remove and replace the idol, as it was not considered an act of worship or management. The plaintiff's application for leave to sue on behalf of the villagers was dismissed, and the appeal was subsequently dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff had the right to remove and replace the idol in the village temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff did not have the right to remove and replace the idol, as it was not considered an act of worship or management. Additionally, the plaintiff's application for leave to sue on behalf of the villagers was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants.
1. In this case the question is whether the plaintiff can sue to establish his right to remove an idol from the temple of his village, that idol being alleged to be cracked, and to replace it by a new idol made by himself. The temple, it is not disputed, has no trustees and no property. It is referred to as the temple of the villagers, who are the worshippers in it.
2. The plaintiff first supports his right to remove the idol and to replace it by a new one on the ground that it would. be an act of worship, which like any other villager he is entitled to perform. We cannot see how in any ordinary sense the removal of an idol from a temple and the substitution of a new one is an act of worship.
3. Next the plaintiff argues that such removal land substitution would be an act of management. The difficulty however is that he has not shown that he has any right to manage, He no doubt presented an application in the court of First Instance for leave to sue as representing the villagers as a body. But that application was dismissed and, as he has no ground of appeal against the dismissal as improper, we are not prepared to allow him to argue the point. In these circumstances the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff (appellant) to defendants 1 to 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 (respondents 1 to 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15). There was no necessity for the 14th defendant (13th respondent) to appear here and he will bear his own costs.
