1. We think the right claimed to stop the idol in front of the plaintiff's house is not part of the right of worship by a member of the community for whose benefit the temple has been dedicated. There is no right to obstruct the highway for an indefinite time and the plaintiffs' claim is based upon such a right on the part of the idol. For these reasons we think the Courts below were right in holding that as regards this alleged right, the suit was not of a nature of which a Civil Court can take cognisance. The claim as regards honors referred to in paragraph (a) of the prayer is not pressed by the appellant.
2. As regards the alleged right to make offerings at the Krishna Coil, the plaint merely alleges an immemorial custom (paragraph 5) but does not aver that the plaintiff has acquired any right thereunder. Paragraph 9 refers to the infringement of the supposed right. Paragraph 11 is confined to the right to make offerings in the street. Issue No. 3 specifically raises the question of the plaintiff's right to make offerings at the Krishna Ccil. But in the view which the Courts below took of issue No. 1, it was not necessary for them to record any findings on this issue.
3. The cases, Vengamuthu v. Pandaveswara 6 M. 151 and Nagiah Bathudn v. Mutachary 11 M.L.J. 215 are both authorities for the proposition that the right to worship in a temple is enforcible in a Civil Court. In Vaidinatha v. Chandrasekara 15 M.L.J. 458 it was laid down that there is a right of worship in a temple at any time or at any festival subject, we presume, to the qualification that 'at any time' means, during hours of public worship.
4. It is true Krishna Coil is no part of Sarangapani temple in the sense it is its property, but if the Sarangapani temple authorities have the right to place the idol in the Krishna Coil for the day in order that worship may take place there, we do not see why the right of a member of the community to worship should not include a right to worship the idol when placed in the Krishna Coil. The allegations in the plaint are not distinct as regards this right having been acquired by immemorial custom, or as to the right of the idol to be placed in the Krishna Coil for public worship. As the question was specifically raised in the issues we are not disposed to dismiss the second appeal.
5. We think the plaintiff should be allowed to amend by making the necessary allegations on the terms of paying the costs incurred up to date. There will be leave to amend on payment into the District Munsif's Court within three months from this date of the costs incurred by the defendants up to date (one set).
6. We reverse the decree of the lower Court and remand the case to the Munsif to dispose of in accordance with those directions. Otherwise the second appeal will be dismissed with costs.