M APPADORAI AIYANGAR (DECEASED) Vs. PBANNANGARACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the interminable and deplorable disputes between the Thengalai and Vadagalai sects of Vaishnava Brahmins worshipping in the Sri Varadarajaswami Temple at Conjeevaram. The disputes have a history going-back for at least two centuries. Fortunately, we can start with the decision of this Court in Tatacharyar V/s. Krishnamacharyar (1882) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 313, where the learned Judges set forth the ancient history of this dispute, described the Adyapakam service to which it relates and decided the main basis upon which this service shall be conducted. The learned judges pointed out that the service consisted originally of the Thodakkam or the invocation to prayer, followed by the Mantram in praise of the Guru, after which comes the main part of the service consisting of the recitation of the Prabandams in the Tamil language. The learned Judges observed that the Thodakkam office had been by consent entrusted to a particular family of Vadagalais, that no one was at that time performing the service and that if it be true that the family to which this service was entrusted had become extinct, the united sects should elect a common representative to the office of Thodakkadar, which office, it was held, had become severed from the main Adyapakam services, so that any right of the Thengalais as mirasdars to hold that office had been lost. Except the Thodakkam office it was declared that the Adyapakam miras belonged exclusively to the Thengalais residing at Conjeevaram who were entitled to discharge the ditties of the office both inside the temple and in processions outside the temple, the Vadagalais being restrained from interfering with the Thengalais in the recital of the Mantram and Prabandams other wise than as ordinary worshippers. This judgment delivered in 1882 was followed by a litigation which started in O.S. No. 10 of 1906 on the file of the District Court of Chingleput. In that suit the Thengalais prayed for a declaration that the Vadagalais had no right to recite any Mantram, Prabandam or Vazhi Thirunamam, in other words, to take part; in the Adyapakam service, except as ordinary worshippers. They asked for a declaration that the right of the Vadagalais as worshippers was only to recite the same Mantram, Prabandam and Vazhi Thirunamam as the Thengalais and that in so doing they should station themselves behind the Thengalais as part of the assembly of the Thengalai mirasdars. They also prayed for the consequential injunction. It has to be noted that the hymn called Vazhi Thirunamam which is introduced into this plaint was not expressly covered by the judgment in Tatacharyar V/s. Krishnamacharyar (1882) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 313. Vazhi Thirunamam is apparently a supplemental hymn sung at the conclusion of the Prabandams and it is not sung in a form common to the two sects as the Prabandams are, One of the questions in issue in the 1906 suit was: What is the proper Patram and appropriate Vazhi Thirunamam to be used at the time of the Adyapakam service and whether the plaintiffs had the right to recite Vazhi Thirunamam.

(2.) The learned District Judge observes in paragraph 7 that the Adyapakam service consists mainly in the recitation of the Prabandam preceded by the recitation of the Mantram or hymn, and followed by the recitation of a stanza in honour of the saint who was invoked by the hymn chanted at the beginning. That is to say it is recognised that the Vazhi Thirunamam is the appropriate conclusion of the Adyapakam service and that the stanza recited must be in honour of the saint invoked in the Mantram which begins the service. In dealing with the issues the learned District Judge lumps together various issues relating to the precise form of the service and the rights of the parties and holds that the Thengalais are entitled to protection in the conduct of their office at the actual times of service during the Puja and in processions, that the Vadagalais as ordinary worshippers may, if they choose, join the Thengalais in the service of Adyapakam and if they do so, they must recite the same Mantram and Prabandam. He observes: The plaintiffs ask that it should be declared that the Vadagalais have no right to recite any Mantram or Prabandam or Vazhi Thirunamam, in other words, to take part in the Adyapakam service except as ordinary worshippers. The rights of the defendants were declared in Tatacharyar V/s. Krishnamacharyar (1882) I.L.R. 5 Mad. 313 and the plaintiffs have already got a declaration to this effect.

(3.) Reading these portions of the judgment together, it seems to me that the only possible conclusion is that the learned District Judge decided that the whole of the Adyapakam service was to be performed by the Thengalai mirasdars, that the Vazhi Thirunamam was treated as part of the Adyapakam service and that from the omission to refer to it specifically in the decree which resulted it cannot be inferred that the District Judge negatived the claim of the Thengalai mirasdars to recite the Vazhi Thirunamam as part of the Adyapakam service.