number only the learned judge accepted the finding of the learned subordinate judge that the plaintiff as the aradanaikar or the archaka of the sub shrine was virtually an office holder in the main temple he also went further and held that as one of the theerthakars the plaintiff companyld be companysidered to be the holder of the office of arulipad in the main temple.
he died in the year 1127 a. d. in the 13th century a shrine was built in his honumberr and his idol was installed therein.
the heads of the ahobilam mutt and the tirukkurungudi mutt are the second and third defendants respectively.
against the said judgment the plaintiff preferred second appeals to the high companyrt of judicature at madras being second appeals number.
each of the said temples has its own manager archakas and separate endowments but presumably because of the fact that the alwar8 and acharyas whose idols are installed in the smaller temples were originally devotees of sri athinathalwar an interesting and numberel practice of mutual and regular exchange of visits between the idols in the smaller shrines and the idol of athinathalwar has grown over the years.
each of the said jeers is allotted a particular place in the ghoshti and a certain order of precedence is observed inter se between them.
o. s. number 320 of 1933 was finally numbered as o. s. number 66 of 1936 and was disposed of on march 25 1941 by the district munsif tirunelveli.
the manager and archaka of the said temple is knumbern as emberumanar jeer.
244 and 245 of 1958.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated february 19 1953 of the madras high companyrt in second appeals number.
sri ramanujacharya was one of the greatest of the devotees of lord vishnu and is well knumbern throughout this vast country as the progenitor of an important school of indian philosophy.
at alwar tirunagari in tirunelveli district there is a famous temple called athinathalwar temple.
as leave to appeal to a division bench was number given by the learned judge the first defendant i.e. the vanamamalai jeer in the suits by special leave has preferred these appeals against the judgment of the high companyrt.
2120 and 2121 of 1947.
he is a 8anyasi held in reverence by vaishnavites of south india.
this order of precedence in the matter of receiving honumberrs has become an unending source of bickering between the religious heads with the result the madras hindu religious endow ments board companystituted under act 1 of 1923 with jurisdiction to administer the endowments in the madras state had to interfere and settle the disputes inter se between the various jeers.
the fourth defendant is the executive officer of the temple of sri athinathalwar and he was appointed by the hindu religious endowments board madras.
number.
civil appellante jurisdiction civil appeals number.
n. rajagopala sastri and m. s. k. sastri for respondent number 1a.
there is a mutt called the vanamamalai mutt in the said district and the head of the mutt is knumbern as vanamamalai jeer.
the records disclose that at any rate from the middle of the last century there have been disputes between the various jeers and others as regards the order of priority in which certain honumberrs have to be distributed among the said jeers when they attend the temple of sri athinathalwar for worship.
emberumanar temple also is outside the precincts of the temple of athinathalwar.
as many as six appeals were preferred against the decrees in the two suits by the aggrieved parties to the district companyrt and the learned district judge in a companymon judgment disposed of them on january 23 1947.
in precedence over all the others.
1 and 155 of 1943 on january 311945 chandrasekara aiyar j. dismissed both the appeals.
both the parties preferred appeals to the high companyrt of madras and they were numbered as c. m. as.
this suit was later transferred to the companyrt of the subordinate judge tuticorin as o. s. number 46 of 1945 to be tried along with o. s. number 45 of 1945.
v. viswanatha sastri and m. s. k. iyengar for the appellants.
in the ghoshties group of worshipers in front of the deity both on ordinary and special days the said jeers are shown honumberrs befitting their rank.
these suits have had a chequered career.
during certain specified occasions in the year the idols in the minumber temples are brought to the main temple for worship so too on specific occasions the idol of athinathalwar is also taken to the minumber shrines such visits being reminiscent of the days when the alwars and acharya8 worshiped in the temple of athinathalwar.
2120 and 2121 of 1947.
he is the first defendant.
number satisfied with the said order the emberumanar jeer filed o. s. number 320 of 1933 in the companyrt of the district munsif tirunelveli which was later transferred to the companyrt of the subordinate judge tuticorin as o. s. number 45 of 1945 against the other jeers and the hindu religious endowments board for the declara tion of his right to the first theertham and other per quisites in precedence over all the others in the ghoshties of sri athinathalwar temple on the ground that he was entitled to them as the office holder of the temple of emberumanar.
on may 12 1927 the said board fixed the order of precedence for honumberrs between the various jeers to be observed both on ordinary and special days.
there are also mutual visits between the idol of emberumanar and the idol of athinathalwar to each others temple.
the present emberumanar jeer is the plaintiff in the suits out of which the appeals have arisen.
by the said order the board recognized the emberumanar jeers right to the honumberrs and perquisites in precedence over the other jeers on all the days other than vaikasi festival days except the 7th day and as regards the other days of the festival namely 1st to 6th and 8th to 10th days the board directed that the other jeers should be shown on the respective days both the ordinary and special honumberrs in precedence over the rest of the jeers including the emberumanar jeer.
as time passed by 20 smaller temples were erected to companymemorate the lives of alwar8 and acharya8.
its origin is lost in antiquity.
subsequent to the filing of the suit the board by its order dated may 15 1935 altered the order of precedence giving the vanamamalai jeer precedence over the emberumanar jeer and this led to the emberumanar jeer filing anumberher suit o. s. number 201 of 1941 in the companyrt of the district munsif srivaikuntam for a declaration of his right to the first theertham etc.
to the suits the emberumanar jeer the vanamamalai jeer the ahobilam jeer and the tirukkurungudi jeer and the executive officer of the hindu religious endowments board were made parties.
april 27.
within the companypound of the main shrine there are three minumber shrines of nachiar nammalwar and garuda the rest of the smaller shrines are outside the premises of the main temple.
in the 10th and 11th centuries vaishnavite saints called alwars and acharyas who were ardent devotees of lord vishnu worshiped at the temple and sang in praise of the lord.
45 and 46 of 1945 on his file and they raise the question of maintainability of a suit in regard to honumbers and perquisites in the temple of athinathalwar in alwar tirunagari.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao j. these two appeals are directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of madras dated february 19 1953 setting aside that of the district judge tirunelveli and restoring that of the subordinate judge tuticorin in s. number.
sri ramanujacharya is also knumbern as udayavar or emberumanar and the shrine built in his dedication is knumbern as emberumanar temple.
the honumberrs companysist of distribution of theertham thulasi satari and viniyogam and a few more similar items.
the presiding deity in the temple is lord vishnu.
v. venugopalachari and r. gopalakrishnan for respondent number 8a in appeal number 244 and respondent number 7a in appeal number 245.
on the evidence it was held that the plaintiffs had number made out the existence of any obligatory duty on the part of theerthakar in the temple.
