SUPRAMANI AYER et al. v. CHANGARAPILLAI et al.

SUPRAMANI AYER et al. v. CHANGARAPILLAI et al.

D. C, Jaffna, 24,688.

Hindu temple-Office of priest, right to exercise-Cause of action.

Plaintiffs in their plaint averred that they were entitled to a share of the office of priest in a Hindu temple; that to the exercise of such right were attached certain emoluments; and that they had been unlawfully prevented by the defendants from entering the temple and exercising their office, and had thus suffered pecuniary loss; and they prayed for a decree declaring their right to the share that they claimed of the office of priest, and restraining the defendants from interfering with them in the exercise of such right, and condemning the defendants in the damages they had sustained.

Held, following the dictum of Lord Cranworth in Forbes v. Eden (L. R, 1 Sc. Ap. 568), that the plaint disclosed a good cause of action.

THE facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of J. Bonser, C.J.

Rámanáthan, S.-G., and Dornhorst, for first defendant, appellant.

Wendt and Sampayo, for plaintiffs, respondents.

12th March, 1896. Bonser, C.J.-

In this case the plaintiffs cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document