Muthamilselvan and Others vs A. Manickam and Others

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the judgment

and decree dated 16.4.2004 rendered in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 by the Court of District Munsif, Melur.

Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed by the defendants in the suit, it comes to be known that the

respondents herein have filed the suit in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Melur for declaration of their right to

enjoy the benefits of the honour in the temple of Sri Periyapanaiyur Ayyanar, Attapatti by rotation and for permanent injunction restraining the

defendants from in any manner interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs. It further comes to be seen that during the course of trial, the defendants

have filed a petition in I.A.No. 426 of 2004 unter Order 14, Rule 5 and Section 151, C.P.C. praying to frame an additional issue relating to the

jurisdiction of the trial Court to try the suits in respect of Honours in the temple and the trial Court having conducted a thorough trial into the matter,

wherein on behalf of the plaintiffs four witnesses would be examined for oral evidence as P.Ws.1 to 4 and nine documents would be marked for

documentary evidence as Exs.A.1 to A.9 and on behalf of the defendants, ten witnesses would be examined for oral evidence as D.Ws.1 to 10

and forty documents would be marked as Exs.B.1 to B.40 for documentary evidence and in consideration of all these materials placed on record,

the trial Court besides holding that the suit is maintainable has also decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants have come forward to file the above

Civil Revision Petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Revision.

During arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since the suit is filed regarding the religious honours, the

same is not maintainable before a Civil Court and would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and

Others Vs. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer and Another, , wherein it has been held:

In view of Section 9, C.P.C., 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 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 rites 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.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further cite a judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court way back in the

year 1932, in Chitti Babu Mudaliar Vs. A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and Another, , wherein it has been held:

..... the claim of the plaintiff was only one for mere honours and as such it did not lie and further as there was no mutuality of obligations, the

plaintiff could not be said to have any rights which could be enforced against the temple even though the suit may be described as a suit for a

declaration of a right.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would also cite a judgment delivered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Sadhu Sri

Vaishnavar Nambi Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. K.K.V. Annan Srinivasachariar and others, , wherein the learned Judge, following the principles laid

down by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment first cited above Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and Others Vs. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer and

Another, has held in a suit claiming certain rights on the basis of disputed custom and usage in religious institutions that ''the suit is barred by Section

63(e) read with Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.''

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further submit that when a decision rendered by any Tribunal or a Court of law is without

jurisdiction, this Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and would cite a judgment delivered

by a learned single Judge of this Court in Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil by P.K. Annamalai Mudaliar and Others Vs. The Commissioner, H.R.

and C.E. Department and Others, , wherein in a suit for declaration that suit temple, is a denominational temple belonging to particular community

living in specific streets and for declaration regarding appointment of Thakkar and for injunction, the trial Court has granted the declaratory relief

but rejected the prayer for injunction which was upheld by the first appellate Court on appeal by the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has filed the

second appeal but the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department against whom the injunction was sought for by the plaintiff from

interfering with the management of the suit temple by the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal against the declaratory relief and the learned Judge

having found that the decree of declaration granted by the trial Court is prima facie illegal has set aside the said finding of the trial Court suo motu

even though it was not challenged by the other side and has held as follows:

This Court though hears the second appeal filed by the appellant and the H.R. & C.E. Department has not preferred any appeal, yet this Court

can exercise the revisional powers of Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When the trial Court has granted a decree which is

prima facie illegal though such a finding is not challenged by any party, still the High Court can and shall when it is brought to its knowledge,

exercise the power under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This power can also be exercised

suo motu by the High Court....

Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since the judgment passed by the trial Court is

without jurisdiction and ex facie illegal, the same could be set aside by this Court by exercising the powers conferred under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that the Honourable Apex Court has time and again held that when the suit is not

maintainable, the ordial trial need not be gone through and the same could be struck down.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would place reliance on Sections 1(3) and 6(20) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

1(3); It applies to all Hindu public religious Institutions and endowments including the incorporated . Dewaswoms and Unincorporated

Dewaswoms.

6(20): ""temple"" means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of,

or used as of right by, the Hindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship;

Explanation: Where a temple situated outside the State has proprierties situated within the State, control shall be exercised over the temple in

accordance with the provisions of this Act, insofar as the properties of the temple situated within the State are concerned.

Reading out the above provisions of law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since the Act applies to all the

temples, if any dispute arises as to the status of the temple, such dispute has to be raised only before the Deputy Commissioner or any Authority of

the H.R. & C.E. Department and no suit could lie in a Civil Court and would cite a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in

Inspector/Fit Person, H.R. and C.E. Vs. Amirthammal, Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Asst. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. and M.

Sundaram Chettiar, , wherein it has been held:

Though there is a reference in the plaint to the suit property being a ''samadhi'', the relief asked is for a declaration that the property is not a public

temple. This is a dispute that falls u/s 63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act. It is not an incidental question that is asked to be decided in the suit, but the

only question. Therefore, this dispute ought to have been adjudicated by the authority under the Act and the Act also provides for a detailed

enquiry.

The suit must therefore, be dismissed as not maintainable since the question of maintainability is answered in favour of the appellant.

Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would read out Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious

and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which is extracted hereunder for ready references:

Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to decide Certain Disputes and Matters -- Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter

provided, the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, shall have power to inquire into and decide the following

disputes and matters:

(a)..........

(b) ..........

(c) ..........

(d) ..........

(e) Whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious institution; and what the

established usage of a religious institution is in regard to any other matter;

....

Reading out the above proposition of law, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the dispute ought to have been raised

either before the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner since it pertains to the question of honour and therefore, a civil suit, as filed by

the respondents herein is not maintainable and even though a decree is passed by the trial Court, since it is passed without jurisdiction it is a nullity.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would cite a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in P. Sangili and

Others Vs. Ramakrishnan and Others, , wherein it has been held:

A decree passed by Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and it can even be challenged collaterally without a prayer for setting it aside. The

expression ''collateral proceedings'' is used in contradiction to proceedings arising directly out of the very order which is alleged to be null and void.

If there are independent or parallel proceedings in which the validity of the said order is put in issue, such proceedings are said to be collateral

proceedings. Consequently, the expression ''collateral proceedings'' is so understood, the present suit instituted by the plaintiff is a collateral

proceeding.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that since Section 9 of the C.P.C. is a bar to file any suit of such nature and as it

is not maintainable in law, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is a nullity and would pray to set aside the same.

On the contrary, on the part of the respondents, the learned counsel referring to the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit before

the Court below would submit that they have never raised the issue of maintainability before the trial Court and during the trial, that too on evidence

of plaintiffs it was established that the temple is a private temple, the defendants have filed the petition to frame additional issue and the trial Court

also after having framed the additional issue has arrived at the conclusion that the suit is maintainable; that no material has been placed before the

Court to prove that it is a public temple; that it is a dispute between two private parties and the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the H.R.

& C.E. Department and the relief being a civil right, the suit is maintainable. The learned counsel would further submit that having participated in the

suit proceedings and having lost it to the plaintiffs, the defendants cannot take a plea that the suit is not maintainable and if at all the defendants are

aggrieved against the decree of the trial Court, they could have preferred a regular appeal u/s 96 of the C.P.C.

The learned counsel for the respondents would cite a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court delivered in Sri Vallaba Ganesar

Devasthanam and Others Vs. A. Anandavadivelu Mudaliar and Others, , wherein it has been held:

It is equally settled that if, in a suit, any matter in respect of which a provision is made under the Act had to be incidentally decided the jurisdiction

of the Civil Court will not be excluded. To be more specific if any other question in respect of which the power is conferred on the Deputy

Commissioner to decide u/s 63 of the Act, arises incidentally for consideration in a suit, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court will not be excluded.

Notwithstanding Section 108 of the Act, where the dispute relating to a temple is only between two private parties and the board is not directly

concerned, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that applying the above proposition of law, the suit filed by the

plaintiffs is very well maintainable before the Civil Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that bypassing the appellate remedy available for them, the defendants have come

forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and if such a practice is encouraged, none would

prefer any appeal or second appeal against such decrees and judgments passed by the Courts below. The learned counsel would further submit

that admittedly there is a provision of appeal against the decree passed by the Trial Court and all the points raised herein by the revision petitioners

could very well be answered by the appellate authority, but the fact remains that the revision petitioners are raking up all these points anew without

making any whisper in their written statement. At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered

in Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , wherein it has been held:

Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution...."" .

The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court

or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In

exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or a Tribunal. It is also

not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior

Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision...."".

The learned counsel for the respondents would also cite a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court delivered in R. Natesan Vs. City

Union Bank Ltd., K. Harihara Subramanian, Hema Harihara Subramanian, G. Balasubramaniam, V. Vinod Kumar, Padma Balasubramaniam,

Ferrodeal Private Ltd. and Akila Natesan, , wherein the learned Judge, following the decision of the Honourable Apex Court cited supra Sadhana

Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, in a matter filed by a person aggrieved by the Order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has held that ''Section 20(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act is

the proper remedy for the petitioner to agitate the matter before the Appellate Tribunal and that the present revision under Article 227 of the

Constitution is not appropriate.

Regarding the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents would say that all

those judgments are delivered either in a first appeal or in a Second Appeal and hence they cannot be applied to the facts of the case. The learned

counsel would further read out Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 which is extracted

hereunder for ready reference:

Bar of Suits in respect of Administration or Management of Religious Institutions, etc., --

No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for

determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in confirmity with, the

provisions of this Act.

Reading out the said provision of law, the learned counsel would submit that since the question arising for adjudication falls outside the scope and

ambit of Section 108 of the Act, according to the judgment Sri Vallaba Ganesar Devasthanam and Others Vs. A. Anandavadivelu Mudaliar and

Others, , the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the bar of exclusion of jurisdiction provided for u/s 108 of the Act cannot be

invoked.

Regarding the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners reported in Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and Others Vs. Sri Ranga

Ramanuja Jeer and Another, , the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the same will not apply to the facts in the case in hand

since after the said judgment, Section 9 of the C.P.C. got amended and would read out Section 9 of the C.P.C., which is extracted hereunder:

Courts to try all Civil Suits unless barbed -- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a

civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Explanation I: A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend

entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies.

Explanation II: For the purposes of this Section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or

whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.

The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that when there is a regular appeal remedy available for the petitioners, this revision

petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and would cite a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered

in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Others, , wherein it has been held:

... The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends of justice. They can be used to interfere even with an interlocutory

order. However, the power under Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an order of the High Court, such a source of

power, when the High Court itself does not in terms purport to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial

superintendence must be exercised sparingly and only to keep Subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to

correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bans the exercise of revisional powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant

interference under Article 227 since the power of superintendence was not meant to circumvent statutory law. It is settled law that the jurisdiction

under Article 227 could not be exercised in the ""cloak of an appeal in disguise"".

The learned counsel for the respondents would also cite a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court delivered in V.S. Lakshminarayanan

Iyengar and 8 others Vs. M.C. Arunachala Pillai and 8 others, , wherein in a suit for declaration that plaintiffs are hereditary Archahas or Stanigars

in suit temple, for declaration that plaintiffs are entitled to receive ""Padi Arisi"" which is being given by devotees and collected by plaintiffs and for

consequential mandatory injunction directing to remove Hundi for collection of Padi Arisi and for consequential permanent injunction and the

plaintiffs succeeded in the Trial Court but lost in the first appeal and in the Second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs it has been held:

With regard to declaratory relief of entitlement to Padi Arisi being offered by devotees, said relief would not fall within the purview of Section

63(g) of the T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act and there is substantial evidence to hold that hereditary pujaries have been collecting padi arisi from time

immemorial and such right has accrued to plaintiffs by custom and usage in suit temple which has been declared in earlier round of litigations.

Plaintiffs have challenged interference of their customary right by defendants and as such suit is not barred by Section 108 of Tamil Nadu H.R. &

C.E. Act and also entitled for mandatory injunction and consequential permanent injunction.

Citing the above judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in the case in hand also, the plaintiffs have established their

right by abundant oral and documentary evidence and therefore the suit is not a bar u/s 108 of the Act. On such arguments, the learned counsel for

the respondents would pray to dismiss the above Civil Revision Petition.

In clarification, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents

particularly State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and Others, and Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance

Company Ltd. and Another, are the judgments delivered in the context of POTA and Debt Recovery Tribunal Act and hence they cannot be

applied to the facts of the case in hand and since the rights of the plaintiffs are covered under the T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act, the suit is not maintainable

and the decree and judgment rendered by the Trial Court need to be set aside and would pray to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, this Court

is able to assess that in the above Civil Revision Petition, the questions pertain to answer are regarding:

the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain a suit of this nature and to decide particularly in view of certain relevant provisions of law such as

Sections 1(3), 6(20) and the Explanation appended therein, 63 and 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,

1959; and

the maintainability of the above Civil Revision Petition itself by this Court on the decision of a suit filed by the respondents herein having been

come to be decreed by the lower Court so as to be testified under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners, who are the

defendants in the suit.

As it is the burden of the petitioners herein to answer the second question regarding the maintainability of the above Civil Revision Petition as

against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of District Munsif, Melur dated 16.4.2004 in its O.S.No. 144 of 2003 since there is a

regular appeal provision available as alternative remedy provided under law, it is the burden of the respondents herein to prove the jurisdiction of

the lower Court to entertain, conduct and decide the suit in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 since filed by the respondents herein and vehemently attacked

on the part of the petitioners that in the wake of the relevant provisions and bar of jurisdiction created under the special enactment, the Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, treating the same as a civil right, the lower Court cannot gain jurisdiction to decide the suit

and such questions could be decided only by those authorities who are designated under the special enactment.

On the part of the respondents regarding the second question framed above, they would come forward to argue that bypassing the regular

appeal remedy available for them, the defendants in the suit/the revision petitioners herein, have come forward to file the above Civil Revision

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and if such a practice is encouraged, there will be a bad precedent created that instead of

preferring the appeals in the regular forums as against the decrees and judgments passed by the lower Courts, the parties would start approaching

the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by means of the Civil Revision Petitions which should be discredited.

In consummation of this argument, the learned counsel for the respondents would cite many judgments particularly that of the Honourable

Apex Court Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, wherein it has been held that ''where a statutory right to file an

appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India''. It has been

further held that ''the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an

inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record much less of an error

of law.'' It has been further held that ''under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal

which is impermissible''.

Admitting the above proposition as held by the Honourable Apex Court, if the contentions of the petitioners in the above Civil Revision Petition

are to be gone through, it is not as though instead of preferring a regular appeal the petitioners have come forward to seek the protection under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India but in spite of the knowledge that such an appeal remedy is open for them to exhaust or ventilate their

grievances in challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Court, they have filed the above Civil Revision Petition since according to them, as

it has been held in the above judgment discussed, the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the

records. The question raised being one regarding which, according to the petitioners, the inferior Court has adopted different parameters in

entertaining the suit in spite of it being clearly spelt out rather barred by specific provisions in the special enactment i.e. the T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act,

1959 to the effect that where Hindu public religious institutions and endowments including the incorporated Dewaswoms and unincorporated

Dewaswoms and temples having been brought under the purview of the Act, if any dispute arises as to the status of the temple or the religious

institution or the endowment, as defined under Sections 1(3) and 6(20) of the Act, such disputes could be raised only before either the Joint

Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner and in this context, the petitioners would strongly rely on Section 63(e) of the Act wherein it is only the

Joint Commissioner of the Deputy Commissioner to decide certain disputes and matters which are internal and they cannot be testified in a civil

forum, which is a bar u/s 108 of the T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act, wherein it has been specifically spelt out that in respect of administration or

management of religious institutions, etc., no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted in any Court of law except in conformity with the

provisions of the Act.

On the part of the petitioners, it would further be argued that the Civil Court could only try those suits unless barred by special enactment such

as T.N.H.R. & C.E. Act and since there is a bar created under law, the lower Court having entertained the suit regarding the disputes which have

arisen regarding the religious institutions defined therein with which only those authorities who are designated u/s 63 of the Act could sit over the

decision and not the civil forums and therefore entertaining the suit of such nature and deciding the same by the Court of District Munsif, Melur,

Madurai District is irregular and impermissible and therefore it would further be argued on the part of the petitioners that as it has been remarked

by the Honourable Apex Court in the judgment cited by the respondents, extracted supra, the Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution not merely testifying the error apparent on the face of the records or the facts in issue, but the very jurisdiction that the lower Court

has embrased as against the vital provisions of law not only giving such powers to decide to the Joint Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners

since the subject in dispute is regarding the religious institution or the temple and therefore the bar created u/s 108 of the Act is effective and

testifying such serious irregularities adopting a different parameter than what could be adopted by the lower Court in entertaining the suit is

erroneous and hence the petitioners are fully justified in testifying the validity of the suit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the manner

that they have done.

This Court is in agreement with the arguments advanced on the part of the petitioners so far as entertaining the above Civil Revision Petition for

decision on a judgment and decree delivered in the suit by the lower Court since it is not the merit of the suit that has been gone into either

discussing the same or weighing the evidence therein but the very foundation of entertainment of the suit by the Court thereby questioning the

jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and therefore this Court is of the view that absolutely there is no bar for the petitioners to have come

forward to institute the above Civil Revision Petition testifying the legality of the filing of the above Civil Revision Petition before this Court and

hence this question is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

So far as the jurisdiction question No. (1) raised above is concerned, on the part of the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for them

would cause production of humpty number of judgments particularly delivered by the Honourable Apex Court, such as reported in Sri Sinna

Ramanuja Jeer and Others Vs. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer and Another, wherein it has been clearly spelt out that since the suit is regarding the

religious Honours, the same is not maintainable before the Civil Court further observing that ''prima facie, Honours such as who is to stand in the

ghoshti, in what place, who is to get the tulasi etc... 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''.

The other judgments delivered by the Honourable Apex Court and the Madras High Court regarding such rights are also cited such as Chitti

Babu Mudaliar Vs. A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and Another, and Arulmighu Kumbeswarar Koil by P.K. Annamalai Mudaliar and Others Vs. The

Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department and Others, wherein the exercise of revisional powers by the High Court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is justified and it has been held that such powers under the said Article and Section 115 of the C.P.C. could also be exercised

suo motu by the High Court, thus deciding the issue so tellingly and therefore, in these circumstances, this Court cannot have a different opinion

than to accept the legal dictum derived by the upper forums in their earlier decisions and relying on them, if this Court has to decide the above Civil

Revision Petition, it has to allow the same granting the relief as prayed for and hence the following order:

In result,

(i) the above Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the same is allowed.

(ii) The judgment and decree dated 16.4.2004 rendered in O.S.No. 144 of 2003 by the Court of District Munsif, Melur is hereby nullified.

However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, C.M.P.Nos. 8727 & 8728 of 2004 and V.C.M.P.No. 320 of 2004 are closed.