SRI SINNA RAMANUJ JEER AND OTHERS versus SRI RANGA RAMANUJA JEER AND ANOTHER.

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 27-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
509 
SRI SINN A RAMANUJ A JEER AND OTHERS 
v. 
SRI RANGA RAMANUJA JEER 
AND ANOTHER. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
and J. R. MunHoLKAR, JJ.) 
Temple Honour-S1'il by aradanaikar and trustee of temple 
for declaration of right to first theertham-Maintainability-Test-
Code of Civil Procedure, r908 (Act V of r908), s. 9. 
The respondent as the aradanaikar and trustee of the 
Emberumanar temple, dedicated to Sri Ramanujacharya, which 
was one of the group of temples built around the main temple 
of Athinathalwar in the Tirunelveli District, brought the two 
suits, out of which present appeals arose, for declaration of his 
right to the first theertham and other honours and perquisites in 
precedence over all other worshippers in the temple of Athina-
thalwar and his case was that he was entitled to them by virtue 
of his office in the Emberumanar temple. The matters came up 
to the High Court. There was a remand order and the Subordi-
nate Judge who tried the suits thereafter held that the Emberu-
manar temple was a sub-shrine attached to the main temple 
and as such the plaintiff was virtually an office-holder in the 
main temple and the precedence claimed by him was attached to 
that office as part of the remuneration and decreed the suits. On 
appeal the District Judge, on a review of the entire evidence, set 
aside the findings arrived at by the trial court and dismissed the 
suits as not maintainable. 
The appeals to the High Court were 
heard by a single Judge who, on a reconsideration of the evid-
ence, reversed the findings of the District Judge and affirmed 
those of the Subordinate Judge and decreed the suits. It was, 
further, held by the High Court that, as one of the theerthakars, 
the appellant could be considered to be the holder of the office 
of arulipad in the main temple. 
Held. that although it was not permissible under s. 9 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure for a civil Court to entertain a suit for a 
declaration of religious honours and privileges simpliciter, it 
could 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. But the essential condition 
for the existence of an office was that its holder must be under 
a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to it and be 
liable to penalty on failure to do so. 
So judged, there could neither be an independent office of 
theerthakar, for he had no obligatory duties to perform, nor that 
of an arulipad, since that word only connoted that the names of 
theerthakars were called out by the archaka in a particular order. 
65 
April a7. 
Sri Sinna 
Rani1,nuja jeer 
v. 
Sri Ranga 
Ramanuja jeer 
Subba R:ao ]. 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
The question whether first theertham or any other honours 
shown to a person were merely as a mark of respect on the 
occasion of his visit to the temple, or were part of the remunera-
tion attached to his office, must in every case be decided on 
evidence and in the latter case such honours must be shown to 
have formed an integral part of the ritual to be performed by 
the recipient as the holder of the office. 
Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal v. E layavalH Srinivasa-
chariar, (r9r3) M.W.N. 289, approved. 
Striman Sadagopa v. Kristna Tatachariyar, (r863) I M.H.C.R. 
3or, Sri Rungachariar v. Rungasami Buttachar, (r909) I.L.R. 32 
Mad. 29r and Vathiar Venkatachariar v. P. Ponappa Ayyangar, 
(r9r8) 45 I.C. 959, referred to. 
Sri Emberumanar ] eer Swamigal v. The Board of Commis-
sioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, (r936) 7r M.L.J. 
588, considered. 
Held, further, that it was well settled that the High Court 
had no jurisdiction to entertain a second apreal on the ground 
of erroneous finding of fact, however gross the error might seem 
to be. In the instant case, the High Court was clearly in error 
in reversing the finding of the District Judge, which was one of 
fact, that the Emberumanar temple was neither subordinate to, 
nor~part of the Athinathalwar temple and no office-holder of the 
former could, therefore, become an office-holder of the latter. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 244 and 245 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated February 19, 1953, of the Madras High 
Court in Second Appeals Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1947. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and M. S. K. Iyengar, for 
the appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.