SRI SINNA RAMANUJ JEER AND OTHERS versus SRI RANGA RAMANUJA JEER AND ANOTHER.

SRI SINNA RAMANUJ JEER AND OTHERS versus SRI RANGA RAMANUJA JEER AND ANOTHER.

Since the plaintiff was not an office-holder of Athinathalwar temple, and the Emberumanar temple was a separate institution, his suit for temple honours was not maintainable in the civil court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties
Appellant: Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and Others; Respondent 1 a: Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer; Respondent Sa/7 A/others: Another (Vanamamalai Jeer, Ahobilam Jeer, Tirukkurungudi Jeer, Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the High Court Judgment in Second Appeals Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1947
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Suits for Temple Honours, Office Holder Rights and Privileges in Temples, Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure, Rights of Aradanaikar and Trustee, Jurisdiction in Second Appeals
Civil Procedure Religious Endowments Trusts and Temples Maintainability of Suits for Temple Honours Office Holder Rights and Privileges in Temples Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure Rights of Aradanaikar and Trustee Jurisdiction in Second Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Sinna Ramanuja Jeer and Others

Appellant

Sri Ranga Ramanuja Jeer

Respondent 1 a

Another (Vanamamalai Jeer, Ahobilam Jeer, Tirukkurungudi Jeer, Executive Officer of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board)

Respondent Sa/7 A/others

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the High Court Judgment in Second Appeals Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1947

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a suit is maintainable in a civil court for declaration of rights to temple honours and perquisites in precedence over other worshippers.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff, as aradanaikar and trustee of the Emberumanar temple, holds an office in the Athinathalwar temple entitling him to such privileges.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the plaintiff was not an office-holder of Athinathalwar temple, and the Emberumanar temple was a separate institution, his suit for temple honours was not maintainable in the civil court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Suits are not maintainable in civil court.
  • High Court judgment set aside; District Judge's dismissal restored.