AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 242 wordsIt is clear from the allegations in the plaint that this suit is not for the establishment of the PLalntiff''s right to any office in a temple.
His claim in the pLalnt is for certain temple honours to be shown to him as 1st Gurikar of a certain caste in a certain village. It is not alleged that
any duties are to be performed by him. The act of worship which it is alleged in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the pLalnt that the plaintiff and three other
Gurikars do an the Occasion of the annual jatra cannot be regarded as a duty or obligation arising out of an office. The facts of this case are not
distinguishable from those which were the subject of the decisions in Sriman Sadagopa v. Krishna Tatachariyar 1 M.H.C.R. 301 and Karuppa v.
Kolanthayan ILR 7 Mad. 91 and Sangappa Bin Baslingappa v. Gangappa Bin Naranjappa ILR 2 Bom. 476 and Narayan v. Krishnaji ILR 10
Bom. 233 and Tholappala Charlu v. Venkata-charulu ILR 19 Mad. 62 and VathiarVenkatachariar v. Ponnappa Aiyangar 7 L.W. 614 .
We agree with the District Munsif that the suit as framed is not maintainable in a Civil Court.
We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif which dismissed the suit with costs. The respondent will
bear his own and appellant''s costs here and in the Lower Appellate Court.