# SRI SINN A RAMANUJ A JEER AND OTHERS v. SRI RANGA RAMANUJA JEER AND ANOTHER - **Citation:** [1962] 2 S.C.R. 509 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1962 - **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 244 and 245 of 1958 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, K. Subba Rao, Raghubar Dayal, J. R. MunHoLKAR - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-sinn-a-ramanuj-a-jeer-and-others-v-sri-ranga-ramanuja-jeer-and-another-2270 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote Temple Honour-S1'il by aradanaikar and trustee of temple for declaration of right to first theertham-Maintainability-TestCode 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 Athinathalwar 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 Subordinate Judge who tried the suits thereafter held that the Emberumanar 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 evidence, 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 remuneration 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 Srinivasachariar, (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 Commissioners 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. ## Text _Characters 0–39,896 of 59,767. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39896 for what follows._ 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-TestCode 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 Athinathalwar 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 Subordinate Judge who tried the suits thereafter held that the Emberumanar 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 evidence, 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 remuneration 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 Srinivasachariar, (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 Commissioners 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 appellants. K. N. Rajagopala Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for respondent No. IA. S. V. Venugopalachari and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. SA in Appeal No. 244 and respondent No. 7 A in Appeal No. 245. 1961. April 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SuBBA RAO, J.-These two appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated February 19, 1953, setting aside that of the District Judge, Tirunelveli, and restoring that of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, in 0. S. Nos. 45 and 46 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 511 of 1945 on his file, and they raise the question of maintainability of a suit in regard to honours and perquisites in the temple of Athinathalwar in Alwar Tirunagari. At Alwar Tirunagari in Tirunelveli District there is a famous temple called Athinathalwar temple. The presiding deity in the temple is Lord Vishnu. Its origin is lost in antiquity. In the 10th and 11th centuries Vaishnavite saints, called Alwars and Acharyas, who were ardent devotees of Lord Vishnu, worshipped at the temple and sang in praise of the Lord. As time passed by, 20 smaller temples were erected to commemorate the lives of Alwars and Acharyas. Within the compound of the main shrine, there are three minor shrines of Nachiar, Nammalwar, and Garuda; the rest of the smaller shrines are outside the premises of the main temple. Each of the said temples has its own manager, archakas and separate endowments; but, presumably because of the fact that the Alwars and Acharyas, whose idols are installed in the smaller temples, were originally devotees of Sri Athinathalwar, an interesting and novel practice of mutual and regular exchange of visits between the idols in the smaller shrines and the idol of Athinathalwar has grown over the years. During certain specified occasions in the year, the idols in the minor temples are brought to the main temple for worship; so too, on specific occasions the idol of Athinathalwar is also taken to the minor shrines; such visits being reminiscent of the days when the Alwars and Acharyas worshipped in the temple of Athinathalwar. Sri Ramanujacharya was one of the greatest of the devotees of Lord Vishnu and is well known throughout this vast country as the progenitor of an important schoool of Indian philosophy. He died in the year 1127 A. D. In the 13th century a shrine was built in his honour and his idol was installed therein. Sri Ramanujacharya is also known as Udayavar or Emberumanar and the shrine built in his dedication is known as Emberumanar temple. The manager and archaka of the said temple is known as Emberumanar r96r Sri S·inna Ramanuja ] e1r v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja j eey Subba Rao ]. Sri Sinna Ratnanuja ] eer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja jeer Subba Rao ]. 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] Jeer. Emberumanar temple also is outside the pre. cincts of the temple of Athinathaiwar. There are also mutual visits between the idol of Emberumanar and the idol of Athinathalwar to each other's temple. The present Emberumanar Jeer is the plaintiff in the suits out of which the appeals have arisen. There is a mutt called the Vanamamalai Mutt in the said District and the head of the mutt is known as Vanamamalai Jeer. He is a sanyasi held in reverence by Vaishnavites of South India. He is the first defendant. The heads of the Ahobilam Mutt and the Tirukkurungudi Mutt are the second and third defendants respectively. The fourth defendant is the Executive Officer of the temple of Sri Athinathalwar and he was appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras. The records disclose that, at any rate from the middle of the last century, there have been disputes between the various Jeers and others as regards the order of priority in which certain honours have to be distributed among the said Jeers when they attend the temple of Sri Athinathalwar for worship. In the ghoshties (group of worshippers in front of the deity) both on ordinary and special days the said Jeers are shown honours befitting their rank. The honours consist of distribution of theertham, thulasi, satari and viniyogam, and a few more similar items. Each of the said Jeers is allotted a particular place in the ghoshti and a certain order of precedence is observed inter se between them. This order of precedence in the matter of receiving honours has become an unending source of bickering between the religious heads; with the result, the Madras Hindu Religious Endow. ments Board, constituted under Act 1 of 1923, with jurisdiction to administer the endowments in the Madras State, had to interfere and settle the disputes inter se between the various Jeers. On May 12, 1927, the said Board fixed the order of precedence for honours between the various Jeers to be observed both on ordinary and special days. By the said order the Board recognized the Emberumanar Jeer's right i· 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 513 to the honours and perquisites in precedence over the other Jeers on all the days other than Vaikasi festival days, except the 7th day, and as regards the other days of the festival, namely, 1st to 6th and 8th to 10th days, the Board directed that the other Jeers should be shown on the respective days both the ordinary and special honours in precedence over the rest of the Jeers, including the Emberumailar Jeer. Not satisfied with the said order, the Emberumanar Jeer filed 0. S. No. 320 of 1933 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, as 0. S. No. 45 of 1945, against the other Jeers and the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, for the declaration of his right to the first theertham and other perquisites in precedence over all the others in the ghoshties of Sri Athinathalwar temple on the ground that he was entitled to them as the office-holder of the temple of E,mberumanar. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the Board, by its order dated May 15, 1935, altered the order of precedence giving the Vanamamalai Jeer precedence over the Emberumanar Jeer; and this led to the Emberumanar Jeer filing another suit 0. S. No. 201 of 1941 in the Court of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, for a declaration of his right to the first theertham, etc., in precedence over all the others. This suit was later transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, as O. S. No. 46 of 1945, to be tried along with 0. S. No. 45 of 1945. To the suits the Emberumanar Jeer, the Vanamamalai Jeer, the Ahobilam Jeer and the Tirukkurungudi Jeer, and the Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board were made parties. These suits have had a chequered career. But we shall briefly refer only to those stages of the long drawn litigation which have some bearing on the questions raised in the present appeals. 0. S. No. 320 of 1933 was finally numbered as 0. S. No. 66 of 1936 and was disposed of on March 25, 1941, by the District Munsif, Tirunelveli. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable, as the plaintiff had no legal right in respect Ig6r Sti Sinna Ra»ianuja jeer v. Sri Ranga Rainanuja ] eer Subba Rao ]. r96I Sri Sinna Ramanuja ] eer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao J. 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) of which he could seek relief in a civil court. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, came to the conclusion that, as the plaintiff had come to court to establish his right of precedence to receive the theertham, etc., as forming part of the emoluments of his office of aradanaikar in the suit temple, the suit could not be dismissed on the preliminary ground that it was barred under s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; on that basis, he set aside the decree of the District Munsif and remanded the case for trial on other issues arising in the case. Both the parties preferred appeals to the High Court of Madras and they were numbered as C. M. As. Nos. 1 and 155 of 1943; on January 31, 1945, Chandrasekara Aiyar, J., dismissed both the appeals. The learned Judge propounded alternative theories, and he expressed himself thus: "Of course, before he (plaintiff) can succeed in the suit, the plaintiff has to make out that he being the Aradanaikar and trustee of the Emberumanar temple amounts to his holding an office in the suit temple." The learned Judge agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the suit could not be dismissed in limine without deciding the said question of fact. On remand, the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, to whom the said suit and the connected suit, being renumbered 0. S. Nos. 45 and 46of1945, were remanded came to the conclusion that the Emberumanar temple was a sub-shrine attached to the main temple of Sri Athinathalwar, and that that the plaintiff, who was the aradanaikar of the sub-shrine, would be virtually an office-holder in the main temple. He further held that the privilege of first theertham was attached to the said office as part of its remuneration and, therefore, the suit was one of civil nature falling under 8. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure; in that view, having held on the merits that the plaintiff had established his right of precedence, he decreed both the suits. As many as six appeals were preferred against the decrees in the two snits by the aggrieved parties· to the District Court; and the learned District Judge in a common judgment disposed of them on January 23, 1947. 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 515 The learned District Judge, on a review of the evidence in the case, held that the institutions were not interdependent or intimately connected in such a way that an office-holder oft.he Emberumanar temple was necessarily an office-holder of the Athinathalwar temple. On that finding, he held that the plaintiff was not an office-holder of the Athinathalwar temple and, therefore, he was not entitled to file a suit with regard to his rights of precedence in being given the theertham, etc. In the result he allowed the appeals and dismissed both the suits with costs throughout. Against the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred second appea.ls to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, being Second Appeals Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1947. They were heard by Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., who on a reconsideration of the evidence disagreed with the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge and accepted the finding given by the learned Subordinate Judge. Not only the learned Judge accepted the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff as the aradanaikar or the archaka of the sub-shrine was virtually an office-holder in the main temple, he also went further and held that, as one of the theerthakars, the plaintiff could be considered to be the holder of the office of arulipad in the main temple. In the result the learned Judge set aside the decree of the District Judge and restored the decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge. As leave to appeal to a division bench was not given by the learned Judge, the first defendant, i.e., the Vanamamalai Jeer, in the suits, by special leave, has preferred these appeals against the judgment of the High Court. Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the appellant, raised before us the following points: (1) A suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to honours in a temple would not lie unless he establishes that he holds an office in the said temple and that the said honours form part of the perquisites attached to the said office, and that, as in the present case the plaintiff claimed that he was an aradanaikar and trustee of only the Emberumanar temple and as such entitled to honours in Athinathalwar temple, 1961 Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer v. Sri Ranga Ra1nanuja ] eer Subba Rao ]. I96I Sri Sinna Ramanuja jeer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao ]. 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] the suits should have been dismissed in limine on the ground that the plaints did not disclose any claim of civil nature falling under s. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) The Courts were not justified in allowing the plaintiff to make out a new case not disclosed in the plaints, namely, that the Emberumanar temple was a subordinate shrine of the Athinathalwartemple and, therefore, the plaintiff was the office-holder of the latter temple; assuming that there was justification for the courts in allowing the plaintiff to develop a new case at a very late stage of the proceedings, there was a clear finding of the District Court based on the evidence adduced in the case that the Emberumanar temple was not a sub-shrine of the Athinathalwar temple, and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside that finding in second appeals. Mr. Rajagopala Sastri, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the plaintiff's alternative case was not really a new one, but all the relevant facts in support of that case were disclosed in the plaints, and that the finding of the District Judge was not a finding of fact but was either a legal inference from proved facts or a mixed question of fact and law. He argued that the contention of learned counsel for the appellant ignores the religious background and ideas of the class of persons with which we are now concerned, and that, if the matter is approached from a correct perspective, as the High Court did, it would be realized that there was such an association between the two temples as it could be said that one is subordinate to the other leading to the only irresistible inference that the plaintiff, the office-holder of the sub-shrine, could claim honours in the main temple of which the sub-shrine is only a part in the larger sense. At the outset it would be convenient and necessary to notice briefly the law pertaining to the maintainability of suits in civil courts in respect of honours in temples. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure describes the nature of suits which a court has jurisdiction to entertain. It can entertain every suit of a civil nature excepting suits of which its cognizance is 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 517 either expressly or impliedly barred. As a corollary to this, it follows that a court cannot entertain a suit which is not of a civil nature. Prima facie suits raising questions of religious rites and ceremonies only are not maintainable in a civil court, for they do not deal with legal rights of parties. But the explanation to the section accepting the said undoubted position says that a suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of civil nature notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of a question as to religious rites or ceremonies. It implies two things, namely, (i) a suit for an office is a suit of a civil nature; and (ii) it does not cease to be one even if the said right depends entirely upon a decision of a question as to the religious rites or ceremonies. It implies further that questions as to religious rites or ceremonies cannot independently of such a right form the subject-matter of a civil suit. Honours shown or precedence given to religious dignitaries when they attend religious ceremonies in a temple cannot be placed on a higher footing than the religious rights or ceremonies, for they are integral part of the said rites or ceremonies in the sense that the said honours are shown to persons partaking in the ceremonies. Prima facie honours, such as who is to stand in the ghoshti, in what place, who is to get the tulasi, etc., in which order, and similar others, cannot be considered to be part of the remuneration or perquisites attached to an office, for they are only tokens of welcome of an honoured guest within the precincts of a temple. One would have thought that it would even be a sacrilege to claim a right of precedence in the presence of the Almighty God, for all go .before him as humble devotees to earn his blessings and not to assert their self importance or claim their right to preferential treatment. But a century of case law in that part of the country has recognized certain rights of different grades of devotees and they and their innumerable followers began to cherish them or even to fight for them in criminal and civil courts. This Court, therefore, does not propose to reconsider the 66 r96t Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao j. Sri Sinna Ramanf4ja jeer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao ]. 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] question of honours on first principles but only will resurvey the law on the subject with a view to ascertain, and if possible to clarify, the legal position. The earliest decision is that in Striman Sadagopa v. Kristna Tatachariyar (1). There, the plaintiff was the gurukkal of Sri Ahobilam Mutt and he sued the trustees of Sri Devarajaswami temple at Conjeevaram for damages for injuries done to him by withholding from him certain honours and emoluments and also sought to have his right to such honours and emoluments established for the future. Two Schedules were attached to that plaint and they showed inter alia that what was claimed as honours were such as garlands, cocoanuts, prasadams and other paraphernalia attending the ceremonial recitation when the gurukkal visited the temple. Scotland, Q.J., formulated the legal position thus: " ......... these clearly show that every one of the matters in respect of which the suit is brought is purely a matter of religious and sacred observance in connection with the worship and ceremonials at the pagoda, and is claimed by the plaintiff as a matter of devotional respect and display due to his priestly rank or as a votive offering made to him whilst passing in procession through the temples, and when brought to the presence of the principal idol." Then the learned Chief Justice proceeded to state: "He (the plaintiff) is not officially connected in any way with the management or control of the pagoda, or its property or funds; and the alleged dues of his office have no doubt been owing to the great reverence at one time entertained for his sacredotal rank in the Hindu religion, and the importance from a religious point of view of his mere presence at the pagoda." He concluded thus: "Such honours and emoluments cannot in any respect be considered as remuneration for duties or ministrations performed by the plaintiff in the secular affairs or religious services of the pagoda." (•) (1863) I M.H.C.R. JOI, 3o6. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519 This decision, which has stood the test of time, clearly lays down that a suit to enforce the rights of persons holding offices connected with the management and regulation of temples and for honours and emoluments connected therewith would lie in a civil court; but a suit by a plaintiff, who does not hold an office in the temple, claiming honours customarily shown to him as a matter of devotional respect and display due to his rank is not of a civil nature. The principle laid down in this case and restated in subsequent cases has been applied by a division bench of the Madras High Court to a claim for first theertham, etc., in Sri Rungachariar v. Rungasami Buttachar(1). That decision was given in an appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs had a hereditary miras right to the offices of Sthalathar, Kutumba First Theertham, Muntrapushpam, V edaparayanam and Adyapakam from times immemorial in the temple of Sri Parimala Ranganathaswarni at Tiruvilandur, and, by virtue of such right, were entitled to a fourth share of the honours and emoluments due to their offices as detailed in schedule A of the plaint. The learned Judges, on the evidence, came to the following conclusion: " ......... the plaintiffs as hereditary Sthalathars are bound to perform, besides the duties of superintendence attached to their office of Sthalathar, the ceremonial duties of vedaparayanam, etc., and are entitled to receive remuneration for the performance of those d11ties. Included in this remumeration is 'the privilege of first theertham' from which the plaintiffs are called 'theerthakars'." Then the learned Judges proceeded to observe: "Taking the findings to be, as we do, that the privilege of the first theertham is attached to the hereditary office of the plaintiffs as a part of the remuneration of the office, the Court must, to protect the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of the office, declare what is the honour to which they are entitled." This decision recognizes that a suit for a declaration of a plaintiff's right to an office and for the honours, (1) (1909) l.L.R. 32 Mad. 291, 298. Sri Sinna Ramanuja J eef v. Sri l?anga Ramanuja jeer Subba Rao J. Sri Sinna Ranzanuja Jeer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao J. 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) such as first theertham, etc., as part of the rem uneration will lie in a civil court. Athan Sadagopachariar Swamigal v. Elayavalli Srinivasachariar (1) is a decision relating to honours in Athinathalwar temple itself. The plaintiff in that case was a trustee of a temple called Pillalokacharyar's temple. The principal object of the suit was to prevent the first defendant from claiming to be one of the Adhyapaka Mirasidars in the temple of Nammalwar and Adinathar in Alwar Tirunagari. It was contended that the first defendant was one of the seven Adhyapaka Mirasidars in the temple and his rank in the ghoshti was just above the plaintiffs. Sadasiva Aiyar, J., posed the question raised and gave his answer thereto thus: "The legal question I wish to say something about is whether a suit for the honours mentioned in the second item of the 2nd Schedule to the plaint is maintainable in a Civil Court. It is clear that if those honours are not attached to any office in the temple, no such suit could lie. The first branch of the question, therefore, is a question of fact, viz., whether these honours are attached to the Adhyapaka Miras office in the temple." After considering the evidence and other relevant decisions, the learned Judge came to the following conclusion: "I see no difficulty whatever in holding on the evidence in this case that the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the 5 other Adhyapaka Mirasidars get their rank in the Goshti and their rank in the distributions of prasadams not because those honours are part of the Adhyapaka Miras office to which they are entitled but because of their being Acharya Purushas or of their families having been very respectable religious families for long or because the mere respect due to their offices has been considered as making them fit in a social, and religious point of view to obtain such honours." That would be enough to dispose of that appeal, but the learned Judge proceeded to make certain observations even on the assumption that the said honours (1) (1913) M.W.N. 289, 299, 300, 301. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 521 had been attached to emoluments so far as the 7 Adhyapaka Mirasidars were concerned. The obserSri Sinna vations of the learned Judge, though obiter, deserve to Ramanuja Jeer be quoted not only because of his vast experience in matters of Hindu religion but also because of his well known reformative zeal to remove the cobwebs that shroded the Hindu religion by superstitious ignov. Sri Ranga Ramanuja ] eer rance and perverted imposition. The learned Judge Subba Rao J. says: " ......... the next question of law is whether such honours to be shown in the presence of God can be legally attached to the office as emoluments, in other words, can honours be legally claimed by anybody as receivable by him in a temple? When a trustee chooses to parade the temple elephants and dancing girls before a high official or any other person and gives him prasadams, etc., he does it in order to show 'honours' to that person and when he does it without prejudice to the conduct of the rituals and ceremonies in the temple, he always says that the . God of the temple Himself condescends to treat the official or other persons as God's guest and shows him these 'honours'. Such persons to whom respect is shown cannot in my opinion claim such 'honours' as a legal right, but as a favour shown by the temple Deity. Such honours in the strict eye of the Shastras cannot be called honours at all but as doles condescendingly given by the temple Deity as a 'favour'. One of the honours, as is well known, shown to a Hindu in a Vaishnava temple is to place the impression of the feet of the Deity upon the head or shoulders of the devotee. Another is the distribution of the 'leavings' of the food offered to the Deity to the distinguished devotee. The sandal paste of the feet of the Deity and the leaving of his food and the garland worn by the God are given as marks of pure grace and not as rights and honours claimable by the devotee ............ This clearly shows that while we ought to humbly accept the Deity's leavings given through the trustee or an archaka, a claim for •honour' to be shown in the presence of God is a sinful claim and is illegal and unshastraic. Sri Sinna Ramanuj a Jeer v. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer Subba Rao]. 522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] I would therefore respectfully confine the decision in Sri Rungachariar v. Rungaswami Buttachar(1) to cases in which the receiving of the first theertham by an office-holder has become indissoluble part of the ritual to be performed by the recipient as an office-holder and the extension of the principle should be carefully guarded against." These are weighty observations and if they were appropriate in the year 1913 they should be much more so in the year 1961. We respectfully accept these observations as laying down the correct proposition, namely, that a party claiming an honour like first theertham, etc., has to prove not only that he is an office-holder of the temple and that he has been receiving the first theertham in the Ghoshti but also that the receipt of the first theertham, has become an integral part of the ritual to be performed by him as an officeholder; for, the receipt of the first theertham would be consistent with its being shown as a grace from the Lord and also as its being a part of the remuneration to the office. Another division bench of the Madras High Court in Vathiar Venkatachariar v. P. Ponappa Ayyengar (') had to consider the question of a claim to a religious honour which consisted of receiving theerthams and prasadams in the temple in certain order of precedence. This case also relates to Athinathalwar temple and to the question of precedence among the theerthakars. The first question raised was whether there was such an office as theertham office in the temple. Krishnan, J., delivering the leading judgment, in rejecting that there was such an office observed: "It may be mentioned that among the Theerthakars there are some 5 or 7 in number, who are called Adhyapakamdars, whose special duty it is to recite these Prabandams and they are remunerated by Inam lands given to them. They are what may be called the official reciters in this temple." Adverting to the question raised, the learned Judge proceeded to observe: "It is clear that,, to constitute an office one, if not (I) (t909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 29'. 298. (2) (r918) 45 LC. 959, 961, 96•. I" 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 523 the essential, thing is the existence of a duty or duties attached to the office which the office-holder is under a legal obligation to perform and the nonperformance of which may be visited by penalties such as a suspension, dismissal, etc." Applying the test in the case of Theerthakars and other Adhyapakam