IMPORTANT POINT
Civil courts cannot adjudicate matters related to poojariship and associated rights, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner as per the HR & CE Act.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 4 of 2005, dated 4.10.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin granting the relief B in the suit, and thereby partly allowing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 65 of 2003, dated 19.11.2004, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur.

1. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 13 originally filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

(a) for declaration that they are the hereditory poojaris’ of Arulmughu Karkugvel Ayyanar Koil.

(b) declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to remuneration attached to the office of the hereditory poojaris.

(c) to cancel the proceedings of the second defendant Tahsildar, Thiruchendur in his proceedings in DTR.NO. 10 of 1976, dated 8.4.1991 and for costs.

2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 to 13 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi. The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the suit prayer (a) and (c). However, the findings of the trial Court with regard to prayer (b) was reversed and the appeal was partly allowed granting the suit prayer (b) in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, the third defendant has come by way of this Second Appeal. Pending appeal, some of the respondents i.e. respondents 1 to 3, 7,10,12 and 21 were recorded dead and their legal representatives were arrayed as respondents 17 to 33.

3. According to the respondents 1 to 13/plaintiffs, they are the hereditory poojaris of Karkugvel Ayyanar Temple and the same was founded by their forefathers. The administration of the temple was looked after by the plaintiffs. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that the Settlement Patta issued under Act 30 of 1963 was granted in favour of the plaintiffs’ forefathers with a condition that they should continue to perform the service of Poojari. It was also claimed that the Plaintiffs have been enjoying the usufructs of the tamarind trees standing in the suit property in lieu of salary for their service as Poojari. The third defendant in his order, dated 8.4.1991 cancelled the patta without notice to the plaintiffs and hence, the same was not binding on them. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that they were entitled to have the share in the Archana tickets at the rate of 40 paise per one rupee and on these pleadings, they sought for decree as prayed for.

4. The third defendant filed a written statement and denied the averments in the plaint as if the plaintiffs have been performing pooja in the suit temple as hereditory poojaris. The allegation regarding issuance of settlement patta was also denied. The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the share in Archana tickets and right to enjoy the usufructs of the tamarind trees were also denied by the third defendant. The third defendant also raised a plea that the suit for declaration of hereditory poojariship was not maintainable before the Civil Court. The defendant also contended that the Civil Court cannot entertain the other prayers for perquisites, share in the archana tickets, validity of the patta issued by the third defendant etc.

5. Before the trial Court, six witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiffs as PW-1 to PW-6 and as many as 53 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiffs as Ex.A1 to Ex.A53. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined as DW-1 and DW-2 and 15 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Ex.B1 to Ex.B15.

6. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that all the three prayers sought for by the plaintiffs cannot be maintained before the Civil Court and hence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2005, on the