- (1.)The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff s suit without any trial, holding that it was not maintainable under the Specific Relief Act without a prayer for the possession of the temple and its properties jointly with the defendants. Though a preliminary issue was framed on the point, no evidence was given or taken and the question was disposed of solely on the pleadings; we have, therefore, to decide the question on the same materials.
(2.)In his plaint the plaintiff states that he is one of the Dikshidars, who are holders of the combined offices of Archaka and Dharmakarta in the plaint temple, and that as such he is entitled, according to the usage of the temple, to the right of performing puja for 5 days once in every 9 months and along with 19 others to the custody of the idols, jewels and other valuables of the temple for 6 months by rotation (apparently once in 6 or 7 years). He states that in 1909 on account of a dispute as to the ownership of a certain plot of land, the body of Dikshidars passed a resolution directing him to deliver it up to the temple and inflicted a fine of Rs. 300 on him and suspended him from his office till he obeyed their orders. He complains that, as a result of this resolution, he has been obstructed in the exercise of the rights and duties of his office and prevented from enjoying the emoluments and privileges attached to it. He claims that the resolution is illegal and inoperative and prays for a declaration to that effect and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with him in the exercise of his office. He further claims damages for the loss of emoluments caused by the wrongful obstruction of the defendants and for the loss of his reputation, in all Rs. 1,600. The only objection the defendants took to the frame of the plaint in their written statement was that plaintiff should have asked for the possession of his office as well. The plaint was thereupon amended to add a prayer for the joint possession of the office. The above is a brief summary of the material allegations and prayers in the plaint with reference to the point we have to consider.
(3.)On this point the lower Courts have held that, as plaintiff was excluded by the defendants from the office of Dharmakarta, he ought to sue not only for a declaration that the defendants act was wrongful but also for the possession of the temple and its properties as consequential relief flowing from the declaration; and relying mainly on the observations of Subramania Aiyar, J., in Vengan Poosari v. Patchamuthu 14 M.L.J. 290 and on the rulings in Abdulkadar v. Mahomed 15 M. 15 ; 5 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 360 and Rathnasabapathi Pillai v. Ramasami Aiyar 5 Ind. Cas. 630 ; 33 M. 452 ; 7 M.L.T. 311 ; 20 L.J. 301 ; (1910) M.W.N. 112 and distinguishing the case in Rama Das v. Hanumantha Row 12 Ind. Cas. 449 ; 36 M. 304 ; 21 M.L.J. 952 ; 10 M.L. 356 ; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 387 they have held the suit to be not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act without such a prayer. On the facts of this case we are unable to support that view.