Skip to content


Babu Pujari and anr. Vs. Thukra Gurikara Alias Kanthu Lakkanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1921)41MLJ287
AppellantBabu Pujari and anr.
RespondentThukra Gurikara Alias Kanthu Lakkanna
Cases Referred and VathiarVenkatachariar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar
Excerpt:
- .....karuppa v. kolanthayan i.l.r. 7 mad. 91 and sangappa bin baslingappa v. gangappa bin naranjappa i.l.r. 2 bom. 476 and narayan v. krishnaji i.l.r. 10 bom. 233 and tholappala charlu v. venkata-charulu i.l.r. 19 mad. 62 and vathiarvenkatachariar v. ponnappa aiyangar 7 l.w. 614 .3. we agree with the district munsif that the suit as framed is not maintainable in a civil court.4. we set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and restore that of the district munsif which dismissed the suit with costs. the respondent will bear his own and appellant's costs here and in the lower appellate court.
Judgment:

1. It is clear from the allegations in the plaint that this suit is not for the establishment of the PLalntiff's right to any office in a temple.

2. His claim in the pLalnt is for certain temple honours to be shown to him as 1st Gurikar of a certain caste in a certain village. It is not alleged that any duties are to be performed by him. The act of worship which it is alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the pLalnt that the plaintiff and three other Gurikars do an the Occasion of the annual jatra cannot be regarded as a duty or obligation arising out of an office. The facts of this case are not distinguishable from those which were the subject of the decisions in Sriman Sadagopa v. Krishna Tatachariyar 1 M.H.C.R. 301 and Karuppa v. Kolanthayan I.L.R. 7 Mad. 91 and Sangappa Bin Baslingappa v. Gangappa Bin Naranjappa I.L.R. 2 Bom. 476 and Narayan v. Krishnaji I.L.R. 10 Bom. 233 and Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata-charulu I.L.R. 19 Mad. 62 and VathiarVenkatachariar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar 7 L.W. 614 .

3. We agree with the District Munsif that the suit as framed is not maintainable in a Civil Court.

4. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif which dismissed the suit with costs. The respondent will bear his own and appellant's costs here and in the Lower Appellate Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //