The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the existence of the claimed office and the connection between the claimed honors and the office through clear evidence.

Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, in Original Suit No. 11 of 1913, dismissing the plaintiffs suit on the ground that his claim was not of a civil nature under Section 9, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st plaintiff having died, the 2nd plaintiff alone has appealed to us against that decree and his learned Vakil has strongly urged that the finding of the lower Court is wrong.

2. The plaintiffs case, as stated in the plaint, is that in the Adniada Alwar temple in Alwar Tirnnagari in the Tinnevelly District there is an office called "Teertham or Teerthakars" office of which they and others, in all 29 in number, are the office holders, that the duty of the said office holders is to recite the Prabandam or Tiruvoimoli and the Vedas in the temple and in places where the idol is taken in procession when the Goshti or group of Teerthakars is formed, that special places are allotted to each of them in the temple for this purpose and that attached to this office as an emolument of it is the right to receive Teertham or Loly water and Prasadam or holy food and some other small perquisites in a fixed order of precedence. The rank of the plaintiffs family is stated to be the 14th in what is called the 1st cup group; considerable importance no doubt is attached to this rank by the parties. The plaintiffs complain that the trustees, defendants Nos. 1 to 5, have improperly introduced into their group, in a place above theirs in rank, the 6th defendant who has no right to be there according to the practice in the temple and have thus illegally interfered with their rank or right of precedence.

3. They do not complain that any portion of the Teethe and Prasad am which have to be given to them is been reduced; but they ask the Court to declare that the 6th defendant is not a Teerthakar officer and is not entitled to any place or Stanam and any honours as such officer, and to restrain him by an injunction from occupying such a place and receiving such honours and the trustees from allowing him to do so. Both the trustees and the 6th defendant have denied the existence of any such office and of any duties or honours attached to it and have pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in a Civil Court. They also alleged that the 6th defendant was entitled to the rank given to him.

4. Before considering the question whether a civil right has been made out it is necessary to refer to a preliminary objection to the appeal raised by Mr. Bangachariar, viz., that the appeal has abated under Order XXII, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. The facts in this connection are these. The 6th defendant was made the 6th respondent in the appeal. He filed a memorandum of cross-objections under Order XLI, Rule 22, Clause 1, for the costs disallowed to him; some time thereafter he died but the appellant took no steps to bring his legal representative on record; and the time for doing it has now expired. If the facts stood there, there would be no answer to the objection. But the 6th defendants legal representative, who is Mr. Rangachariars client, applied in time to have himself brought on the record in the memorandum of cross-objections and he was added to the record as prayed. It is argued that this did not make him party to the appeal. Mr. Rangachariar contends that the appeal and the memo of cross-objections are two distinct and independent proceedings and, therefore, the addition of the legal representative to the latter will not save the former from abating. He refers to the facts that the memorandum of objections has to be stamped as an appeal and that under Order XLI, Rule 22, Clause 4, the withdrawal of the appeal does not affect the hearing of the memorandum of objections as supporting his contention. He also relies on the case of Andrew v. Aiiken (1882) 21 Ch. D. 175 : 51 L.J. Ch. 784 : 46 L.T. 689 : 30 W.R. 701. Rule 22, Clause 1, itself furnishes the answer to this argument. That rule requires that a person