The first defendant came up with this appeal

against the decree and judgment of both the Courts

below in decreeing a suit for prohibitory

injunction.

2. The plaintiff claimed to be a Priest

connected with a Temple maintained by hereditary

trustee Zamorin Raja based on a suit document,

Ext.A2, by which he claims that he had obtained an

assignment of priesthood for a period of two

months.

3. The defendant inter alia contended that

hereditary priesthood belongs to three families in

rotation and each family will get two months' in

rotation. It is admitted that the Temple was

managed by the hereditary trustee Zamorin Raja. The

maintainability of the suit was also challenged by

virtue of Sections 93 & 96 of the Madras Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Both

the courts below repelled the contention raised by

RSA.No.361 OF 2006(B) 3

the defendant and found that there is no

application of Sections 93 and 96 of the said Act.

What is involved in the suit is with respect to the

priesthood assignment and not based on any order or

certificate issued by the Commissioner or any

competent person or the State Government which

alone can be brought under the purview of Sections

93 and 96.

4. It is an admitted fact that the hereditary

right vested with three families was exercised in

accordance with the provisions contained in the

partition, Ext.A1, wherein it is recited that each

family should exercise the hereditary right for the

respective months made mentioned in the partition.

It is submitted by the respondent that every order

or any action purport to have been taken under the

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

Act, should be decided in accordance with the

provisions contained therein. Section 48 also

brought to the notice of this Court. But going by

the partition and agreement between the earlier

trustees, it is clear that the hereditary right was

RSA.No.361 OF 2006(B) 4

reserved and vested with the family in rotation and

it is civil right. It is up to the three branches

of the family to decide who should exercise the

hereditary right, over which the officials under

the Act will not have any kind of say. On the

otherhand, they are bound to accept the decision

taken by the family by virtue of provision

contained in the partition. That doesn't mean that

their order whatever may be by accepting the

nomination should be amenable to Section 48 of the

Act, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of a Civil

Court. Being a civil right vested with the family

especially a hereditary right, the matter would

squarely come under Section 9 of CPC unless

expressly barred. There is no such express bar

anywhere in the Act. The express bar incorporated

in the Act should be understood not relating to the

hereditary trusteeship or hereditary priesthood to

be exercised by the family who holds the right. The

dispute between the family regarding that

hereditary right will stand governed by Section 9

of CPC. In the partition deed there is a provision

RSA.No.361 OF 2006(B) 5

to transfer the right to any of the members of the

said three families and the plaintiff herein is one

of the members of the said family and the transfer

was effected perfectly in tune with the condition

incorporated in Ext.A1 partition deed.

The

concurrent finding rendered by both the courts

below thus deserves no interference. The appeal

fails, dismissed. No question of law brought to

the notice of this court other than what is

mentioned above.

The appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

DMR/-msp/-

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE