Subbaraya Chetti vs Venkatanarasu Chetti And Ors. on 24 November, 1891
4. The question then is whether the priestship of Samayacharam is an office for which a suit will lie in a Civil Court. It is distinguishable from most of the cases quoted, in that it is not attached to any particular temple or place; no specific pecuniary benefit is attached to the office, the only emoluments being voluntary contributions, while the duties of the office are to exercise spiritual and moral supervision over people who wear a certain caste mark in a certain tract of country. No such supervision over the members of the caste can be enforced by law, it being entirely within the option of each individual member of the caste whether he will submit to it or not. Such being the case, the office seems exactly analogous to that of a desayi, as to which it was decided in Subbaraya Chetti v. Venkatanarasu Chetti Second Appeal No. 200 of 1891 (unreported) I that a suit would not lie. No doubt the office of hereditary guru to the Anagundi royal family may be an endowed office, and the holder thereof entitled to certain titles and distinctions, but the relief sought in the plaint is not on the ground that defendants have represented themselves to be the raja's gurus. The District Munsif has, it is true, treated it as if such was the claim, but the plaint does not ask for any declaration that plaintiff is the raja's guru, or to restrain defendants from using his titles, but merely for a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to the Samayacharam office. It is possible the plaintiff might have succeeded had the plaint been framed differently, or had it been amended, but there was no issue as to any personation by defendants, or as to any fraud in assuming the plaintiff's titles.