Skip to content


Periyanan Servai and ors. Vs. Mahadevan Ambalam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad679; 158Ind.Cas.375
AppellantPeriyanan Servai and ors.
RespondentMahadevan Ambalam and ors.
Cases ReferredThirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Srinivasa Chariar
Excerpt:
- .....the dignities are attached to the office of decking the car. this is disbelieved by the subordinate judge. neither side mentions any offices in the pleadings in the former suit, o.s. no. 150 of 1903 on the file of the court of the district munsif of sivaganga, in which the positions of the parties were reversed (exs. 8and 8-c; see also ex. p). we agree with the findings of the subordinate judge.2. it is next urged that the suit is maintainable because a right to worship in a particular manner is claimed. a general right to worship is not denied by the defendants and is not in question. a special kind of worship, to which some dignity is attached, but no emoluments of value are attached cannot be the subject of a suit in a civil court. to this extent we do not agree with the decision.....
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. The suit is to establish plaintiffs' right to two dignities in connexion with a temple. They were to be observed during a car festival before the dragging of the car. They consist in the receipt of a cocoanut and breaking it near the idol on each occasion and were described as Natter cocoanut and Ambalam cocoanut. In themselves they are not of a substantial value. Unless they are attached to some office, the suit is not maintainable. The Subordinate Judge finds that the office now mentioned in the plaint as the offices to which the dignities are attached never existed. The defendants say that the dignities are attached to the office of decking the car. This is disbelieved by the Subordinate Judge. Neither side mentions any offices in the pleadings in the former suit, O.S. No. 150 of 1903 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sivaganga, in which the positions of the parties were reversed (Exs. 8and 8-C; see also Ex. P). We agree with the findings of the Subordinate Judge.

2. It is next urged that the suit is maintainable because a right to worship in a particular manner is claimed. A general right to worship is not denied by the defendants and is not in question. A special kind of worship, to which some dignity is attached, but no emoluments of value are attached cannot be the subject of a suit in a civil Court. To this extent we do not agree with the decision in Thirumalai Alwar Aiyangar v. Srinivasa Chariar 1917 Mad 903. We are not to be understood as agreeing with the observations of the Subordinate Judge as to the ownership of the temple being in the Chettiar or any other persons. We leave the matter open. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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