Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose over religious honours and perquisites in the ancient Athinathalwar temple at Alwar Tirunagari in Tirunelveli District. The presiding deity is Lord Vishnu, and over time twenty smaller temples were erected to commemorate Vaishnavite saints and Acharyas. Among these is the Emberumanar temple, dedicated to Sri Ramanujacharya, whose manager and archaka is known as Emberumanar Jeer. The plaintiff in the original suits was the Emberumanar Jeer, claiming as aradanaikar and trustee of the Emberumanar temple to be entitled to first theertham and other honours in precedence over all other worshippers in the main Athinathalwar temple, by virtue of his office in the smaller shrine. The defendants included the Vanamamalai Jeer, heads of Ahobilam and Tirukkurungudi Mutts, and the Executive Officer appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The Board, constituted under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1923, had intervened in longstanding disputes over order of precedence by issuing orders in 1927 and later altering them in 1935. Aggrieved by the altered order, the plaintiff filed two suits, O.S. No. 320 of 1933 (later O.S. No. 45 of 1945) and O.S. No. 201 of 1941 (later O.S. No. 46 of 1945), seeking declarations of his right to first theertham and other perquisites in precedence over others in the ghoshties of the Athinathalwar temple. The trial court initially dismissed O.S. No. 320 of 1933 as not maintainable, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge held the suit could not be dismissed in limine and remanded for trial. On remand, the Subordinate Judge found that the Emberumanar temple was a sub-shrine attached to the main temple, that the plaintiff was virtually an office-holder in the main temple, and that the privilege of first theertham was attached to that office as remuneration; accordingly, the suits were decreed. The District Judge, on appeal, reviewed the evidence and reversed those findings, holding that the institutions were not interdependent and that the plaintiff held no office in the main temple, and dismissed the suits as not maintainable. The High Court, in second appeals, reversed the District Judge and restored the Subordinate Judge's decree, holding that as one of the theerthakars the plaintiff could be considered the holder of the office of arulipad in the main temple. The Supreme Court, on appeal, addressed the maintainability question under Section 9 CPC. It held that a civil court cannot entertain a suit for declaration of religious honours and privileges simpliciter, but may entertain a suit to establish a right to an office and to honours attached as remuneration or perquisites. The essential condition for existence of an office is that the holder must be under a legal obligation to discharge duties and be liable to penalty. The court found that neither theerthakar nor arulipad constituted an office with such obligations, as theerthakar had no obligatory duties and arulipad merely referred to the order in which names were called. The court further held that whether honours are merely marks of respect or remuneration attached to office must be decided on evidence, and in this case no such integral ritual or remuneration was shown. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction in second appeal to reverse the District Judge's finding of fact, however erroneous it might seem; the District Judge's finding that the Emberumanar temple was neither subordinate to nor part of the Athinathalwar temple justified dismissal. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the District Judge's dismissal was restored.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Section 9, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A civil court cannot entertain a suit for declaration of religious honours and privileges simpliciter, but it can entertain a suit to establish one's right to an office in a temple and to the honours and privileges attached to such office as its remuneration or perquisites - The essential condition for existence of an office is that its holder must be under a legal obligation to discharge duties attached to it and be liable to penalty on failure; no independent office of theerthakar exists because theerthakar has no obligatory duties; arulipad only connotes that names of theerthakars are called out by archaka in a particular order and hence no office - Held that suits for declaration of first theertham and other honours as office-holder of Emberumanar temple were not maintainable as no office in Athinathalwar temple was established (Paras Not mentioned). B) Hindu Religious Endowments - Religious Honours and Perquisites - Whether first theertham or other honours are mark of respect or remuneration attached to office must be decided on evidence and must be shown to form an integral part of the ritual to be performed by recipient as holder of office - The court approved and considered several precedents including Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal v. Elayavalli Srinivasachariar and Sri Emberumanar jeer Swamigal v. The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments - Held that on facts, no such integral part of ritual or remuneration was established (Paras Not mentioned). C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope of High Court's Jurisdiction - High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the ground of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error might seem to be - The District Judge had found as fact that Emberumanar temple was neither subordinate to nor part of Athinathalwar temple and no office-holder of the former could become office-holder of the latter; High Court reversed that finding - Held that High Court clearly erred; appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, District Judge's dismissal restored (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a civil court can entertain a suit for declaration of religious honours and privileges simpliciter under Section 9 CPC, or only when such honours are attached to an office as remuneration; whether the plaintiff, as Emberumanar Jeer, held an office in Athinathalwar temple entitling him to first theertham; whether the High Court erred in second appeal by reversing the District Judge's finding of fact.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The Supreme Court held that the civil court could not entertain a suit for declaration of religious honours simpliciter, and that on the facts no office existed in the Athinathalwar temple to which the honours could attach as remuneration. The High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the District Judge's finding of fact. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the District Judge's dismissal of the suits was restored.
Law Points
- Suit for declaration of religious honours simpliciter not maintainable under Section 9 CPC
- Suit to establish right to office and honours as remuneration maintainable
- Existence of office requires legal obligation and penalty
- No independent office of theerthakar
- Arulipad only connotes order of calling names
- High Court cannot disturb finding of fact in second appeal
