The right to worship is a civil right, and disputes regarding it can be adjudicated in civil courts, despite claims of exclusivity under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam in I.A. No. 9 of 2020 in O.S. No. 52 of 2019 dated 06.09.2021.

1. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. The second defendant in O.S. No. 52 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioner/D2 from performing what is known as “Vidayatru Sevai” for Shri Nammazhwar thereby interfering with the plaintiff's right to offer Mandagapadi worship for Shri Nammazhwar on the suit mentioned dates. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 9 of 2020 for rejection of plaint. The IA was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2021. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this civil revision petition.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is as follows:

Arulmigu Adhinaadhazhwar temple in Azhawarthirunagari is a public temple. During the Tamil month of Vaikasi “Thiruvaikasi Thiruavathara Utsavam” festival is conducted. On the first and second date, there is Mandagapadi for Arulmighu Nammazhvar. The idol of Arulmighu Nammazhvar is taken from the temple to the plaintiff mutt for worship. Enroute, there is a halt at the second defendant mutt. After the second defendant perform their Mandagapadi, it is taken to the plaintiff mutt. This has been going on for quite a few decades. While so, the present suit has been instituted on the premise that the plaintiff mutt alone has the exclusive right to perform Mandagapadi and that permission was given some time in 1998 to enable the second defendant mutt also to perform Mandagapadi and that it has been decided to revoke the said permission. The said decision was duly communicated by the plaintiff to the defendants. Since the defendants have not conceded to the demand, O.S. No. 52 of 2019 was instituted. According to the second defendant, such a suit is not maintainable. This is for more reasons than one. The plaintiff has failed to seek the relief of declaration. Secondly, the right of exclusive honour is not a civil right at all. It is only a religious right and if at all it has to be adjudicated, it has to be under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The suit is barred under Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Natesa Udayar and Another vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 and few other case laws. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this civil revision petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and it does not warrant interference. He drew my attention to the decision reported in Muniandi Kone and Others vs. Sri Ramanatha Sethupathi and Others, AIR 1982 Mad 170 and few other precedents. His contention is that the suit is maintainable. He called upon this Court to dismiss the civil revision petition.

7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the case on hand involves the right to perform Mandagapadi. Mandagapadi is a ceremony of receiving the deity at a particular place during the festival. It is however not a mere ceremony or ritual. The purpose of Mandagapadi is to offer worship to the deity. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ugamsingh and Others vs. Kesrimal and Others, AIR 1971 SC 2540 held that while disputes pertaining to the rituals or ceremonies alone cannot be adjudicated by th