Skip to content


A. Chidambara Gurukkal Vs. Sengoda Goundan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1915Mad84; 25Ind.Cas.999; (1914)27MLJ587
AppellantA. Chidambara Gurukkal
RespondentSengoda Goundan and anr.
Cases ReferredMiller v. Rajendranath Chowdhry
Excerpt:
- - the magistrate does not in so many words say that he is satisfied that there is danger of a breach but (sic) to have been taken for granted by all parties. 7. the order of the magistrate is not bad on this ground......(sic) ceremony in the chinnamman temple, that the counter-petitioners were arranging to have the ceremony performed by another person, contrary to mamul and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists. he prayed that the counter-petitioners be prevented from entering the temple and performing the ceremony.2. the joint magistrate held that the petitioner did not make out his right and directed him not to perform the ceremony until he established his right in a civil court.3. the grounds urged by the petitioner are(1) that the right in dispute is not one falling under section 147 of cr. p.c. and that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order,(2) that there being no finding that there was any likelihood of a breach of the peace the order is irregular,(3) that.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kumarasami Sastri, J.

1. This is a petition against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Salem passed under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioner not to perform the Kumbhabhi-shekam ceremony till he establishes his claim in a Civil Court : the case for the petitioner was that he as Guru of the Nathi and Vellala Goundars was the only person who was entitled to perform the (sic) ceremony in the Chinnamman temple, that the counter-petitioners were arranging to have the ceremony performed by another person, contrary to mamul and that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists. He prayed that the counter-petitioners be prevented from entering the temple and performing the ceremony.

2. The Joint Magistrate held that the petitioner did not make out his right and directed him not to perform the ceremony until he established his right in a Civil Court.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are

(1) that the right in dispute is not one falling under Section 147 of Cr. P.C. and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order,

(2) that there being no finding that there was any likelihood of a breach of the peace the order is irregular,

(3) that the right claimed being one which is not cognizable by a Civil Court, the order directing petitioner to abstain from the exercise of the right till he established his claim in a Civil Court is illegal.

4. As regards the first point there is a conflict of authority between the Calcutta and the Madras High Court. See Guiram Ghosal v. Lal Behari Das I.L.R. (1910) 37 C. 578. It was held that a dispute merely concerning a right to act as pujari in a temple is not within the scope of Section 147 of the Code and this decision was followed in Ramsaran Pathak v. Baghu Nandan Gir I.L.R. (1910) C. 387.

5. In Radar Batcha v. Kadar Batcha Rowthen I.L.R. (1905) M. 287 it was held that a dispute as to the rights to use a mosque between persons claiming to be entitled to officiate as Kazi, therein is a dispute coming within Section 147 of the Crl. P. The case of Muhammad Musalliar v. Kunjichi Bheku Musattiar I.L.R. (1887) M. 328 also supports the view taken in Kadar Bacha v. Kadir Bacha Bowthan I.L.R. (1905) M. 287. In the present case the right claimed is a right to enter the temple and officiate at the Kumbhabhishekam ceremony whenever it is necessary to perform the ceremony and it is difficult to distinguish it from the Madras cases above cited which I am bound to follow.

6. As regards the second point the petitioner alleged fear of a breach of the peace both in his petition and the statement given to Court. The Magistrate does not in so many words say that he is satisfied that there is danger of a breach but (sic) to have been taken for granted by all parties. In the case of Miller v. Rajendranath Chowdhry 2 C.W.N. 670 it was held that Section 147 does not require the Magistrate formally to record a proceeding that there is in his opinion danger of breach of the peace.

7. The order of the Magistrate is not bad on this ground.

8. As regards the third point the materials before me are not sufficient to enable me to decide whether the right claimed is purely one relating to religious rites or ceremonies and does hot involve the right to use the temple for specific purposes and to receive emoluments. I see no reason to interfere with the order as to costs awarded by the Magistrate.

9. The petition fails and is dismissed.


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