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 claim to be entitled by inheritance from their ancestors, and also by a deed of gift from their father,

to a share of the office of priest in a certain Hindu temple in this Colony. They allege that to the exercise of such office in that temple are attached certain emoluments, that they have been unlawfully prevented from entering the temple and exercising their said office, that they have thereby suffered pecuniary loss; and they claim the intervention of the District Court of Jaffna. The defendants objected that there was no jurisdiction in the courts of this Island to interfere in this matter, because it was a matter affecting the Hindu religion and its usages and ceremonies. The District Judge settled an issue of law in the following terms: -"Whether the right to officiate in a Hindu temple and to receive " the incomes appertaining to the office of priesthood is a subject " within the scope of the jurisdiction of this Court, and if so, " whether sufficient ground of action is disclosed by the plaint."

The District Judge found those two issues in favour of the plaintiffs.

The first defendant has appealed.

The Solicitor-General, in support of the appeal contended that this was a spiritual matter with which the Court had no jurisdiction-to deal, and he relied upon the case of Kurukal v. Kurukal, which is reported in 1 S. C. R. 354. But that case when looked at does not assist him at all. It is there laid down " that a District Court " has no jurisdiction to interfere in the concerns of religious communities, unless in the rules which any religious community " has made for its members in relation to the religious object which " it has combined to maintain and support, a civil element enters " which brings it within the sphere of the Court's civil jurisdiction; " and in that case it was stated that there " was no complaint by "the plaintiff that he had been debarred from using the temple " for performing his functions as a priest in all that concerns the " observance of his religion."

In this case there was an allegation that the plaintiffs were debarred from using the temple.

The principles of law which govern this case are stated very clearly by Lord Cranworth in Forbes v. Eden, (L. R. 1 Sc. Ap. 568) where he says that " save for the due disposal and administration " of property, there is no authority in the Courts, either of England " or Scotland, to take cognizance of the rules of a voluntary society " entered into merely for the regulation of its own affairs. If " funds are settled to be disposed of amongst members of a voluntary "Association according to their rules and regulations, the " Court must necessarily take cognizance of those rules and

"regulations for the purpose of satisfying itself as to who is entitled " t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document