Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Periyanan Servai And Ors. vs Mahadevan Ambalam And Ors. on 7 February, 1935

Thathachariar And Ors. vs Srinivasa Raghava Iyengar And Ors. on 17 November, 1937

We are of opinion that the view enunicated in Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam 41 L.W. 752 ; 158 Ind. Cas. 375: (1935) M.W.N. 520; A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 679 ; 8 R.M. 258 is right. It is not disputed that where a religious office is claimed, any emoluments attached thereto may be sued for in a Civil Court either with the office or without the office; in other words, where a man's right to the office is not disputed but he does not get his emoluments he may sue on the emoluments in a Civil Court; or if his claim to the office is not recognised, he may sue for the office as well as for the emoluments. But the right to perform a festival cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a right to an office.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Thathachariar And Ors. vs Srinivasaraghava Aiyangar And Ors. on 17 November, 1937

We are of opinion that the view enunciated in Periyanan Servai v. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752 is right. It is not disputed that where a religious office is claimed any emoluments attached thereto may be sued for in a Civil Court either with the office or without the office; in other words, where a man's right to the office, is not disputed, but he does not get his emoluments he may sue for the emoluments in a Civil Court; or if his claim to the office is not recognised he may sue for the office as well as for the emoluments. But the right to perform a festival cannot in our opinion be regarded as a right to an office.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

G. Muthuchami Naicker And Ors. vs Senniappa Goundar And Ors. on 17 December, 1971

He also relied on paragraph 3 of the Written statement and contended that the various ceremonies including the "Sattuthal" and "Neerattuthal" would bring out the custom and. practice and usage and therefore the second limb of Section 63(e) would cover the established performance of the Vaikasi festival and therefore it is hit by the bar under Section 108. In other words his argument is that the ceremonies would constitute a ritual and that would fall within the ambit of Section 63 of the Act. He relied on the ratio found in Periyanan Servai and Ors. V. Mahadevan Ambalam (1935) 41 L.W. 752 : A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 679 wherein the learned Judges have observed that a special kind of worship, to which some dignity is attached, but no emoluments of value are attached, cannot be the subject of a suit in a civil Court. But in my view, the suit covered by the Bench decision, was to establish the plaintiff's right to two dignities in connection with a temple. In my view, this decision is not of any substantial assistance to the defendants.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narayana Mudali And Anr. vs Periya Kalathi Mudali And Ors. on 7 November, 1938

6. Applying the principles laid down in these decisions to the present case, it seems to me fairly clear that no suit lies for either of the reliefs which are claimed. Kappu Kattu is an act of ritual, partly religious and partly appertaining to the caste, which is at the most a mere incident in a series of ritual observances making up the communal festival. There is no obligation upon the members of the community to take part in the festival or to have their young men decorated in a particular way by the priest who presides at the festival. Their right to worship has not been denied. It is not in my opinion the duty of the Courts to prescribe the precise ritual to be followed in these voluntary observances nor the persons who are to take the leading part therein.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1