Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. In Thurston's Castesand Tribes, Vol vi, page 360, Ilaivaniyars are described under the more high-sounding title of Senai Kudayan, They are also called Kodikkal Pillaimars or Pillaimars, who cultivate the betal vine. In the Madras Census Report of 1901 at page 177 it is remarked " In 1891 following the Tanjore District Manual the were wrongly classed with Vaniyars, oil-mongers, but they are superior to these in social position and are even said to rank above Nattu-Kottaichetties". This latter observation may not be accurate, but there can be no doubt that Ilaivaniyars have no connection whatever with the oilmongers or Vaniyars. Traders must, according to the true spirit of the Hindu Sastras be classed as Vaisyas. Owing however to the repression of Kshatriyas and Vysias by the Brahmins in the medeiaval ages, most of the Kshatriyas and Vysias have descended to the position of Sudras. But there can be no doubt that Ilaivaniyars are at least Sudras and do not belong to the communities which are lower than Sudras who are called Yeenajathiyars (like Pallars, Chucklers and Pariahs).

15. In Venkatachalapathi v. Subbarayadu (1890) I.L.R. 13 M. 293 the learned Judges quote without dissent the following observations of the Court of the First instance in that case; " Temple, of course, is intended for all castes, but there are restrictions of entry. Pariahs cannot go into the court of the temple even. Sudras and Baniyas can go into the hall of the temple. Brahmins can go into the holy of the holies." The learned District Judge in the present case admits that in Venkatachalapathi v. Subbarayadu (1890) I.L.R. 13 M. 293 the burden of proof that a Brahmin was excluded from worshipping in the inner precincts of the temple was imposed on the defendants who were for exclusion, because the plaintiff who was a Brahmin would ordinarily be entitled to access into inner precincts of the temple. On the same reasoning, if a Sudra would ordinarily be entitled to access into the hall beyond the Dwajastamba, it is for those who wish to exclude a. particular community which is not below the Sudra community from such access to establish the custom to exclude that particular community though they form a sub-division of the Sudras. In the well-known Kamudi case Sankaralinganadan v. Rajeswara Dorai (1908) I.R. 31 M. 236 the Shanars were excluded from access into the temple because overwhelming evidence proving that they belong to a caste whose touch was pollution (to Sudra), whose occupation of toddy drawing was of a sinful kind and who were therefore lower than Sudras in status was adduced by those who wanted to exclude them and who unhesitatingly took upon themselves the burden of proving such right of exclusion. No doubt the person who wished to exclude was the plaintiff in that case while here the plaintiffs sue for a declaration that they are entitled to be included; but I. think that it would be a wholly unsatisfactory state of things that the status and rights of a community to take part in public temple worship should depend on whether a member of that community appears as a plaintiff or as a defendant. The contention of the defendants in this case is based not on the allegation that the plaintiffs belong to a caste which is below the sudra caste or whose occupation is of a sinful character, but only on the ground that whatever may be the practice in other temples, in this particular temple the usage is to exclude the plaintiffs from the temple proper. Such a plea not being proved and the plaintiffs as Sudras being prima facie entitled to worship from the Mahamantabham their suit ought to have been decreed.