Sadasiva Aiyer, J. — The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are some of the Archakas in the famous Siva Temple in Tiruvanaikaval near Trichinopoly. They brought this suit against the trustees of the temple (defendants No. 1 and 2) and against two other Archakas who had been employed to perform a special Puja called Navavarana Puja during the 9 days of the Navarathri festival by a rich devotee, the 5th defendant. The plaintiffs' contentions are (1) during those nine days it is the plaintiffs' turn to perform all the Pujas in the temple: and (2) this new Navavarana Puja has not been in existence from time immemorial, is opposed to the Shastras, is provocative of disturbance and is directly opposed to the plaintiffs' right (see paragraph 7 of the plaint).
On these allegations, they sued for a permanent injunction to issue to the defendants restraining them from interfering with the pujas which the plaintiffs should perform, restraining the defendants from performing the new Puja and in case the Court should hold that the performance of the Navavarana Puja is not illegal, restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiffs performing the Puja and from receiving the incomes and honours from the defendants 1, 2 and 5 who should be further prevented from getting the Puja done through the defendants 3 and 4.
The learned District Judge in his Judgment divided the Navavarana Puja into two portions, Pujah and Archanai. Then he held that the defendants 3 and 4 might be employed by the 5th defendant to perform the Archanai but cannot be allowed to perform the Puja. He then gave a decree to the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:—
(1) An injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the performance by the plaintiffs, during the Navarathri, of the Mamool Pujas in Akhilandeswari temple from Uchikala Puja to Ardhajama Puja and the retention by them of the keys of the Sannidhi doors;
(2) An injunction restraining the defendants from performing the Navavarana Puja during the Navarathri festival as described in the Agama Book, Exhibit III, but the defendants to be entitled to perform what is described as the Navavarana Archanai in the last sentence of Exhibit III, namely, the mere recitation of the names of Goddess, offering of food, perfumes, lights Neeranjana (Mangalaharathi) and ringing of bell.
The plaintiffs are not satisfied with the injunction granted in the above terms and they want that even as regards what is called the Navavarana Archanai, the defendants 3 and 4 should not be employed by the 5th defendant to perform this Archanai and that it is only the plaintiffs who could be deputed by the 5th defendant to perform the Archanai.
There are 16 grounds mentioned in the memorandum of Second Appeal but the arguments were confined to two grounds, those grounds being the 3rd and 5th which are as follows:—
“(3) Because it being admitted that this Navavarana Puja or Archanai, whatever view be taken of its nature, is not an old and mamool-conducted form of worship, but is a new introduction into the suit temple, the courts below ought to have granted the injunction sought for.”
“(4) Because in any case the admission of the Vakil, contrary to the evidence and without instructions from the plaintiffs, on a point of ritualistic law in a particular institution is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the admission even so far as it goes, will not authorise the introduction of all new Pujas and Archanas into the temple.”
I must unhesitatingly reject the contention put forward in the 3rd ground. Sir S. Subrahmania Aiyar, J., said in the case of Elayalwar Reddiar v. Namberumall Chettiar that voluntary contributions are usually offered for performing new Pujas or new festivals by rich devotees to famous temples and that provided the festivals and worship are not inconsistent with the object of the institution the trustees would act in contravention of their duty if they refused to celebrate these new festivals or to have these new Pujas performed, provided the requisite funds were forthcoming from the devotees. It is in fact part of the trustees' functions to make the institutions richer and to promote the interests of public worship by accepting such offers of wealthy devotees. It is idle to contend that the institution of a sacred Puja like the Navavarana Puja in which not only Sakthis of the five ordinary aspects of God, (Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra Eswara and Sadasiva) are worshipped, but even the four higher aspects (Bindu, Nada, Sakti and Siva) is a worship which will cause Pujalopam or loss of spiritual benefit in the temple, as previously stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint. As regards the 5th contention in the memorandum of appeal, apart from any admission of the Vakil, the evidence is clear that non-muraikars are entitled to perform for their clients special acts of worship without prejudice to the mamool worship being performed during the usual hours by the muraikars. There is therefore nothing in the 5th ground.
Speaking for myself, I wish to guard myself from being understood as agreeing with the learned District Judge that the Archanai is distinct from the Puja. Puja is a general term meaning ceremonial worship, while Archanai, as ordinarily understood, is the placing of pure leaves or flowers on the idol during the course of recitation of the God's (or Goddess's) names in the ceremonial worship. Archanai is, in fact, a part of the Puja. I do not see any reason why the trustees should not encourage devotees to have as elaborate ceremonial Puja as they like performed to the sacred idols without prejudice to the performance of the mamool Pujas or why only the Archanai portion of the Puja could be allowed to be so performed. In Ex. III, a very illogical dual classification is made of the Puja, the Pujanam being stated to consist of Abhishekam, sandal, throwing of flowers, cloth, etc. while Archanam is said to consist of the mentioning of God's names and the dedication of food, incense, light, bell sound, camphor light and mathuparkam, I might be permitted to state, with great respect to the cadjan leaf, Ex, III, that the mention of Archanam as quite apart from the Pujanam and the omission of offering flowers, etc, from the actions coming under Archanam and the inclusion of it under the head of Pujanam, as distinct from Archanam, are not compatible with either the etymological or colloquial use of those terms. As Apte says in his dictionary Pujanam means worshipping, honouring, adoring, treating with respect, entertaining, hospitality; and Archanam means worshipping, reverence or respect paid to superiors. There is really no difference in the root meaning of the two terms except probably that Archanam is connected more with vocal respect and praise and Pujanam with the mental attitude. In colloquial usage, Archanam is used to signify the throwing of flowers or sacred leaves on the idol, with the recitation of one of the names of God represented by the idol at each act of throwing. As this is considered the most important part of the whole Puja or worship, those who do not wish to worship with elaborate ceremonial content themselves with this principal portion, namely, Archanam, accompanied usually by the showing of camphor light and the dedication of Naivedyam. It does not follow from this that the trustees and devotees are entitled to developed the importance and sanctity of the temple by introducing only Archanais and ought not to introduce any of the other ceremonies included in the complete Puja. As, however, the trustees (the defendants 1 and, 2), the devotee-client (the 5th defendant) and the non-murai Archakas (defendants 3 and 4) of whom the defendant 5 is the client have not put in any cross-appeals or memorandum of objections, it is unnecessary to elaborate this matter further.
In the result, the second Appeal is dismissed with costs, two sets (one set to the trustees-respondents and the other set to the other Respondents).
Hannay, J.—I agree with my learned brother that, for the reasons given by him, the contentions raised by the 3rd and 5th points in the memorandum of Second Appeal must be rejected and that consequently this Second Appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.