JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs—Tengalais—against the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput disallowing their claim to restrain the defendants—Vadagalais — from reciting their Vadagalai mantrams and prabandhams on certain occasions in the Varadarajaswami temple at Conjeevaram. The defendants—Vadagalais—have filed a memorandum of objections against the decree in so far as it restrains them from reciting their own mantrams and prabandhams at certain times and places.
2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs—Tengalais—alleging that the only form of Adhyapaka worship in the temple of Sri Devaraja Swami at Chinna Conjeevaram and in all the shrines attached thereto whenever the prabandham, i.e, the Tamil Veda, may be recited in the shrines or in the processions of the deity, is the Tengalaf form of worship, that is by invoking the Tengalai saint at the commencement of the ceremonial by reciting Sri Sailesa Daya Patram which is followed by the recitation of the prabandham and concluded by the Tengalai Thirunamam in honour of the Tengalai saint invoked at the beginning of the ceremonial. They allege that the exclusive right of carrying on this Adhyapakam worship rests with the. Tengalai Brahmins permanently residing at Conjeevaram and if any other Sri Vaishnava Brahmin, whether a Tengalai or a Vadagalai, wishes to recite these prabandhams either within the temple or in the street he can only join the Tengalai mirasdars, that is residents of Conjeevaram, by invoking the Tengalai saint and following the lead of the Tengalai mirasdars; he must form a member of the congregation of the Tengalai mirasdars, and the Vadagalais are not entitled to form a separate goshti or congregation.
3. The defendants, the Vadagalais, contend that the form of worship is that prescribed by the Sastras common to all Brahmins; that besides the Tamil prabandham, recitations from other sacred works like the Vedas are also made and any person who is qualified for that purpose has got every right to take part in the different kinds of recitations at times of worship: the Tengalai Adhyapakam mirasdars are only the servants of the temple who are bound to recite the Nalayira prabandham in consideration of the emoluments which they receive from the temple, and this does not interfere with the rights of an ordinary worshipper to carry on the worship in his own way. They (the Vadagalais) have accordingly the right to invoke their saint by reciting Ramanuja Patram before the prabandham which is common to both the sects; and they allege that they have always been so reciting the mantram of Ramanuja Daya Patram as not to disturb the Tengalai Adhyapakam mirasdars while doing the service without any interference by the Tengalais. They contend that they are entitled to form separate goshtis of their own for reciting prabandham in their own way and for invoking their own saint within the temple or outside it; and in order to avoid coming into conflict with the Tengalai goshti they have been reciting their prabandham during processions behind the idol, which is calculated not be lower but to enhance the sanctity of the service. They also say that the suit is not cognizable by the civil Courts. There were also other contentions raised in the Court below, which it is not necessary now to notice as they have not been pressed before us in appeal. The District Judge decided that the suit is cognizable by the civil Courts although the claim is in part of a religious nature. He found that the permanent Tengalai residents of Conjeevaram are exclusively entitled to conduct the Adhyapakam service in connexion with the ceremonial worship of the idol in the suit temple, that is, at the time of the puja and when the idol is taken in procession within or outside the temple, and on such occasions the Vadagalais may, if they choose, join the Tengalais in the service Adhyapakam, and if they do so they must recite the same mantram, i.e, the Tengalai mantram, and those portions of the prabandham which are recited by the Tengalais either in the temple or during the processions. He was of opinion that the Vadagalais may form a separate goshti and recite their own mantrams and prabandhams at other times than during the puja in the temple and even during the puja period they may do so in a different part of the temple so as not to interfere with the Tengalais while carrying on their Adhyapakam service. With regard to processions the Vadagalais are entitled to form a goshti behind the idol and before the Vedic goshti reciting their own mantram and pradandham, taking care that by doing so they do not disturb the Tengalai prabandham goshti in front of the deity. He accordingly passed a decree in the following terms:
“This Court doth order and decree that the defendants. Vadagalais, be restrained from reciting their own mantrams and prabandhams during the puja period in the shrines or other places of worship where puja is performed whether the service of Adhyapakam is going on or not that this injunction does not extend to other parts of the temple nor to other times than the puja period, and that with regard to processions the injunction be to restrain the Vadagalais from reciting their own mantrams and ptahandhams by forming a separate goshti in front of the deity, and this Court doth farther order and decree that the rest of the plaintiff's suit be, and the same hereby is, dismissed and that each party do bear its own costs.”
4. In appeal it is contended by the Tengalais that the decree which restrains the Vadagalais from reciting their mantrams and prabandhams during the puja period is indefinite and calculated to lead to further disputes and that therefore it should be expressly stated in decree that the puja closes only with the distribution of the theertham and prasadam, as otherwise it might be said—and it was actually said by the Vadagalais in certain proceedings after this decree was passed—that the Vadagalais are entitled, to recite their mantram and prabandham immediately the Tengalais closed their own, so as to make it a continuation of the worship. It is also contended that inside the tample at other times and places also, the Vadagalais must recite only the Tengalai mantram and repeat only that part of the prabandham which is being recited by the Tengalais.
5. The Vadagalais, on the other hand, contend that they should not be restrained from reciting their prabandham during the entire puja period, that as the Tengalais recite their partandham only during a certain period of the puja, the Tengalais are not entitled to restrain the Vadagalais from reciting their prabandham before the Tengalais commence their mantram or after they have finished the recitation of their prabandham.
6. With regard to processions the Tengalais contend that the Vedicgoshti which follows the idol forms a part of the procession, and allowing the Vadagalais to form a goshti and recite their prabandhams between the idol and the Vedic goshti would break up the procession. They also maintain that it would be a disturbance of the Vedic goshti and they therefore contend that the Vadagalais cannot form an independent goshti anywhere, but must recite their prabandham only in conjunction with the Tengalais.
7. The documentary evidence adduced in this case has been fully discussed by the District Judge. The same evidence was also adduced in the suit which was finally decided by the judgment in Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar(1), and the High Court's judgment sets out in detail the result of that documentary evidence. We propose therefore to make only a brief reference to it.
8. It appears to be admitted that the Adhyapakam service consists of thodakam, mantram and the Tamil prabandhams. The thodakam is the call to prayer. It was decided by the High Court in 1882 that a person should be appointed by both the Tengalais and the Vadagalais to recite the formula usually uttered on such occasions. No person has been appointed yet and the call to prayer has therefore fallen into disuse. The mantram uttered by the Tengalais is the Sri Sailesa Daya Patram which is in honour of Manavala Mahamuni, a Tengalai saint. The Vadagalais repeat the mantram, Sri Ramanuja Daya Patram, in honour of Vadantaohariar, a Vadagalai saint. The Tamil prabandhams which follow the mantram are common to both the Tengalais and the Vadagalais.
9. The dispute between the parties is whether the Vadagalais are entitled to repeat the Vadagalai mantram on any occasion within the temple and whether they are bound to repeat the same verses in the prabandhams as the Tengalais or whether they may repeat any portion of the prabandham though it may happen to be different from that which is at that time being repeated by the Tengalais. The dispute has been going on between the parties for a very long time.
10. The earliest record is Ex. A of the year 1711. It purports to have been executed by a member of the leading Vadagalai family of Thathachariars, who were entitled to recite the thodakam, that they shall after that date repeat only the Tengalai mantram of Sri Sailesa Daya Patram “as has been done under existing mamul for a very long time,” not only during the utsavoms in all the 18 temples but also at all the ceremonies in the house of the temple servants like the archakas, paricharakas, swayampaki, modali and karanam. Ex. B is a similar agreement by certain others in 1770 that the Tengalai mantram alone will be recited in the temples and in the houses. In 1774 there was another agreement (Ex. C) to the same effect. These three documents therefore show the existence of the disputes before 1800 and agreement between the parties that the Tengalai mantram alone should be recited in all the temples. In 1799 the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities and the Collector passed an order that he had learnt that the Vadagalai hymn was recited in certain pagoda for some days “which was never before done and which is contrary to religious doctrines,” and he accordingly put a stop to it and imposed a fine of ten pagodas on two of the Thathachariars for having done so: Ex. D. This order was confirmed in 1801 by his successor who held an inquiry: Ex. E Some years afterwards the question was raised before the civil Courts. One of the temples in Chinna Conjeevaram is that of Velakkadi which has an image of Vedanta Desikar. It is the blessing of this saint that the Vadagalais invoke by their hymn Ramanuja Daya Patram. They recited it in his temple and the Tengalais took objection to it. Thereupon it was decided in that case that as it was contrary to the practice which had prevailed for a long time, and which even at that time prevailed in all the other pagodas in Conjeevaram, according to which the mantram Sri Sailesa Daya Patram should be used, the Vadagalais should not be allowed to repeat their mantram even in the temple which was associated with Vedanta Desikar, and the decree was:
“The prayer Ramanuja Daya Patram should not be recited in the temple of Vedantaohariar. If puja (worship) and festival should be celebrated they should be celebrated by reciting “Sri Sailesa Daya Patram” as in the other Vishnu pagodas at Conjeevaram Ex. H.”
11. The appellate Court in confirming that decree observed that the recitation of the Vadagalai mantram:
“is an innovation of which not one out of the eighteen pagodas at Conjeevaram furnishes an example Ex. H-1.”
12. It is plain that if this mantram could not be recited in the temple of Vedantachariar it could not be recited in any other temple. As pointed out by the District Judge, there is little doubt that this litigation was with reference to the mantram and the judgment clearly established that the mantram to be used was the Tengalai mantram.
13. The next litigation is Original Suit No. 231 of 1828. In that suit it was decided by the Zilla Judge on 1st July 1839 that the Adhyapakam miras belongs to the Tengalais whose mantram alone the Sri Sailesa Daya Patram, should be recited at the commencement of the ceremonies of the pagoda and that those persons who hold the Adhyapakam miras should enjoy the income of sacred rice and cakes. This decree was confirmed by the Sudder Court on 25th November 1839.
14. After this we have the litigation started in 1879 between the Tengalais and the Thathachariars. In that case the final decision of the High Court was that the members of both the sects may join as worshippers in the mantram and the prabandham but the mantram is the Sri Sailesa Daya Patram and in joining as worshippers, the Vadagalais had no right to invade the office of the Tengalai Adhyapakam mirasdars who have got the exclusive right of discharging the duties on all occasions in which the Adhyapakam ceremony is performed as well at the time of processions as at services in the pagodas and those Vadagalais who were defendants in the suit were enjoined to abstain from interference with the Tengalais in the recital of the mantram and prabandham otherwise than as ordinary worshippers.
15. The same question was also raised in connexion with the Velakkadi temple in a suit where the Munsif passed a similar decree.
16. It is not argued before us that so far as the temple in question, that of Devarajaswami is concerned, the matter is res judicata by the decision in Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar. But there is little doubt that even if it is not res judicata that decision is very strong evidence of the rights of the parties and it is supported by the documentary evidence to which we have briefly adverted. So far as the Velakkadi temple is concerned, the question is apparently res judicata. The documents to which we have drawn attention show that there is no distinction so far as the questions in dispute before us are concerned between any of these temples and unless a different practice is shown to have prevailed in some of the temples there can be no doubt that the usage must be held to be uniform and if in the Velakkadi temple sacred to the memory of Vedanta Desikar the Vedagalai mantram in his honour cannot be recited it is very improbable that it can be recited in the other shrines. The decree in the Velakkadi case which follows the decision in the case reported in Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar, runs thus:
“(1) The Adhyapaka miras except thodakam… belongs exclusively to the Tengalai sect residing at Conjeevaram.
(4) The rights of the Adhyapana miras are:
(i) the exclusive right of chanting the mantram Sri Sailesa Daya Patram;
(ii) the exclusive right of reciting the usual Tamil prabandhams in the temple;…
(5) The Tengalais are entitled to discharge the duties on all occasions in which the ceremony is performed as well at the time of procession as at services in the said temple and its shrines.”
17. The final decree of the High Court in Krishnasami Tatacharyar's case does not define what the duties of the Adhyapakam miras are but they are set out in the judgment of the lower Court which was confirmed in appeal.
18. These decisions supported by the documents to which we have referred place beyond all doubt that the Tengalais of Conjeevaram have got the Adhyapakam miras and that it consists of the right of chanting the mantram of Sri Sailesa Daya Patram and also the exclusive right of reciting the usual Tamil prabandhams inside the temple. They establish that the Tengalais are entitled to discharge the duties on all occasions in which the ceremony is performed. The learned pleader for the Vadagalais did not really attempt to controvert the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judges in Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar. What he really attempted to show was that the claims now urged by the Tengalais go far beyond those decisions.
19. On behalf of the Tengalais it is objected that the Judge is wrong in deciding that the Tengalais have got the right claimed only at the time of service of puja in the temple, and that at other times not being office-holders, they are not entitled to protection in the enjoyment of their office, and that the Vadagalais, if they do not like to join the Tengalai officeholders, may form a separate assembly and recite their own mantrams and prabandhams at other times than during puja in the temple. It is quite true that in Original Suit No. 16 of 1879, Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar, while the Tengalais claimed that the Vadagalais should not form part of the congregation or goshti at all, what the Vadagalais claimed was a right to recite their own mantram and prabandham at the same time and at the same place; or in other words, they did not assert a right to recite separately at any other than the prescribed occasions for service nor at any other places than where the service was conducted by the officeholders. The attention of the learned Judges was not therefore expressly directed towards the consideration of the question whether this could be done by the Vadagalais, but there is no doubt from the records to which we have briefly drawn attention and which are set out in detail in the judgment in Krishnasami Tatacharyar v. Krishnamacharyar, and in the judgment of the Court below, that the only mantram that could be recited in the temples was the Tengalai mantram of Sri Sailesa Daya Patram. The order of the Collector at a time when it had the effect of a judicial decision, the decisions in the litigations of 1811 and of 1885 which terminated in 1909 to which we have adverted leave no room for doubt on that point; and the decrees in Original Suit No. 16 of 1879 and the Velakkadi temple case also support that view. The judgment of the High Court in the Srivilliputhur case (Ex. EEE). Srinivasa Thathachariar v. Srinivasa Aiyangar and Srinivasacharyar v. Srinivasa Thathachariar(2), holds that only one mantram can be recited in a temple. This appears also reasonable. That the resident Tengalais have got a superior right to the Tengalais who do not reside in Conjeevaram and to all Vadagalais cannot be denied. They have got the mirasi, i.e, the office to recite the prayers in question and receive the emoluments of the office. It is not likely that other persons also would be entitled to perform the duties of the office. Recital of a different mantram or prabandham during any ceremonial worship or by any goshti would be performance of the duties of that office. That Sri Sailesa Daya Patram is the only mantram that is repeated appears also from the evidence of witness 4 for the defendants, who is a Vadagalai and trustee of this temple. He said that this is being done on account of the agreements into which the parties had entered. We are therefore of opinion that it is only the Tengalai mantram of Sri Sailesa Daya Patram that may be recited within the temple during any ceremonial worship or by any goshti. We must accordingly modify the decree of the District Judge on this point.
20. So far as the prabandham is concerned at the time of the puja, the Tengalais being the mirasdars have the right to recite it and the Vadagalais are entitled to join in the recitation only as worshippers, that is to say, they must repeat the same portions of the prabandham as the Tengalais. The dispute with reference to the period of the puja is whether the Vadagalais are entitled to recite it before the Tengalais begin the mantram and prabandham and also just after the Tengalais have finished the prabandham and before the puja is actually over by the distribution of the theertham and the prasadam. It appears that the puja which begins with the ringing of the bells consists of six asanas. The first asana is the mantrasana which is the invocation of the deity. The second is snanasana when the deity is bathed. The third is alankarasana when the deity is adorned. The fourth is bohjyasana. The fifth is also mantrasana; and the sixth is sayyasana, and after that the puja is closed. The Tengalais begin the recitation of the prabandham during the third asana. There is conflict of evidence as to whether it goes to the end of the puja. According to the Tengalai witnesses the sathumurai, that is, the closing stanzas of the prabandham, is chanted at the time of the distribution of the prasadam, etc. According to the Vadagalai witnesses it is chanted before, and during the asana other mantras or slokas are recited. It is contended that when the actual recitation by the Tengalais of the prabandham is not going on the Vadagalais are entitled to recite the prabandhams in their own way. It cannot be denied that when the worship is carried on and when it is necessary to recite the Tamil prabandhams, the Tengalais as the mirasdars are bound to and are entitled to recite them. Any recitation therefore during the puja, before they begin it, would be as we have already pointed out an anticipation of their worship, would perhaps render their worship even superfluous and would be an undoubted interference with their right to perform the puja. Such interference would also result from the recitation of the Tamil prabandhams during the period, if any, after the Tengalais' recitation and before the close of the puja. We are therefore of opinion that during the puja period, that is from the commencement of the puja to its end, i.e, till the distribution of the theertham and the prasadam the Vadagalais cannot repeat any prabandham of their own, but are only entitled to join the Tengalais as worshippers by reciting the same prabandhams which they recite. The decree of the District Judge will be modified and made clear on this point.
21. The next question is whether the Vadagalais are entitled to recite their prabandham either at the time of the processions within the temple or at other places in the temple where the Tengalais do not carry on the worship. There is nothing in law to prevent any Vadagalais from worshipping the deities consistently with the equal rights of other worshippers. Neither according to the decisions nor according to the records to which we have above referred does there seem to be anything to prevent any Vadagalai from repeating any portion of the prabandham separately and as an act of personal devotion. The question whether any individual may repeat any particular mantram or portion of the prabandham is one not for the civil Courts to decide. We can only decide the question whether any act would be an interference with the Adhyapakam miras of the Conjeevaram Tengalais. Any interference in the puja from its commencement with the ringing of the bells to its close with the distribution of the theertham and prasadam is, we have held, a violation of the plaintiffs' mirasi right. The processions are a part of the worship. Vadagalais cannot therefore form any goshi of their own and repeat any prabandham which is different from that portion of the prabandham which is being recited by the mirasdars. The right of any individual Vadagalai to worship the deity without interfering with others by the recital of any appropriate mantrams or prabandhams, etc., in a temple is very different from the right to form a goshti or congregation of his own sect and recite anything different from the prabandhams which are recited by the mirasdars. The decision in the case Vijiaraghavachariar v. Emperor(3) has nothing to do with processions inside a temple. The observations of the Chief Justice in that case on the other hand are applicable to such processions, and they show that such processions cannot be interfered with by any Vadagalai goshti.
22. We now proceed to deal with the case of processions outside the temple. There can be no doubt that the Vadagalais as well as the Tengalais are entitled to use the public streets for processions. Whatever rights the Tengalais may have those rights the Vadagalais also are entitled to. But one sect should exercise the right without any interference with the other. The Vadagalais are entitled, if they like, to go in a procession of their own by forming their own goshti and reciting their own mantram and their own prabandham they cannot be interfered with in that by the Tengalais. The Tengalais have an equal right to go in a procession of their own. The right to go in procession has now been recognized by a series of decisions in India and the right has also been upheld by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When the Tengalais therefore carry the idol in procession they are entitled to do so without any disturbance. The drummers, etc., march at the head of the procession; then the Tengalais form what is called the prabandhams in which the Vadagalais are entitled to join as ordinary worshippers. But it is not denied that the Vadagalais are not entitled at that time to recite their own mantram or any other prabandham. This is in front of the idol. Behind the idol comes the Vadagalai Vedic goshti reciting the Vedas, etc. The Tengalais are entitled to join it as ordinary worshippers, subject to the same restrictions as Vadagalais when they join the prabandham goshti in front. This closes the procession, in the case in Vijiaraghavachariar v. Emperor, the Vadagalai goshti interposed between the idol and the Vedic goshti, and it was decided that as the Tengalais were not disturbed in their recitation of the prabandham the Vadagalais were not guilty of any offence, and the judgment in that case cannot be taken, therefore to have dealt with the question whether in law they are entitled to form themselves, so to say, a part of the procession by so interposing between the idol and the Vedic goshti. We are clearly of opinion that the intention in so doing is to make themselves a part of the procession and to take part in the worship of the idol. It is argued that no worship can be carried on in public streets. But that is not the question before us for decision. The question for decision before us is whether, while the Tengalais are going in procession and actually carrying on the worship, others are entitled to interfere with it and carry on a different worship. We have no hesitation in holding that they are not entitled to do so.
23. The next question is whether the Vadagalais are entitled to form a goshti behind the Vedic goshti and sing their own prabandham and mantram. If they do not interfere with the Vedic goshti, we do not think that there would be any objection to their doing so. As we have pointed out above, they have got as much rights as the Tengalais to use the public street, and it has also to be observed that the Vedic goshti behind is composed of Vadagalai mirasdars and the Tengalais only join as ordinary worshippers. We think therefore that the Tengalais are not entitled to an injunction to prevent the Vadagalais from doing so.
24. As to the goshti in front, it stands on a different footing. The recital of the prabandhams in front of the idol is considered more appropriate than behind the idol, and the Vadagalais insist upon their claim to do so on that ground. But we think the Judge is right in holding that this should not be allowed. The recitation of the prabandhams and the mantrams in front of the idol can only be intended as a worship of the idol. If it is not intended as such then there is no reason for insisting that they must be allowed to march in front, and the right to carry on such ceremonial worship resides in the resident Tengalais. For the reasons we have already given, to allow this claim would enable them to perform the duties of the office and destroy the value of the miras.
25. The decree of the lower Court will be modified accordingly. The parties will bear their own costa in appeal.
S.N/R.K
26. Decree modified.