2024 situation (द्रष्टुं नोद्यम्)
Only 3 shrines have deshika-idols.
वेगासेतु आलये देशिकस्य उत्सवे ताताचार्याणाम् प्रसाददानविषये परिमाणपट्टिका मम गृहे वर्तते परं आलये देशिकप्रतिमैव नास्ति😭 - shaThakopa-tAtAryaH
18 idols
The origion of the suit: The Srivaishnava community is made up of two divisions namely Thenkalais and Vadakalais. The appellants are of Vadakalai and the respondents of Thenkalai.
In the copy this word has been written “Niyan” and Characterized as not legible, but the correct word is “Thaniyan”, and hence its adoption.
At Canjeevaram, there are 18 sthalams (shrines) of Vishu. In all these 18 shrines, and before the Vadakalais and the Thenkalais commence to recite Dravida (Tamil) Vedas in one combined group, it has been customary to chant, that the Mantram, (incantation) “Srisailesa dayapatram” (worthy of the grace of the Lord of Srisaila).
In all those 18 temples there is the image of Vedanta Chariar.
Even in his Sannadhi (presence),
both the Vadakalais and the Thenkalais have been in the habit of chanting the said Thaniyan* (special stanza),
while so, in respect of Vedanta Chariar Sannadhi attached to the Velakkadi temple,
one of the said 18 shrines the contention of the Vadakalais in this is that instead of chanting the Mantram of “Srisaila (sic) dayapatram” before the Vadakalais and the Thenkalais begin jointly to recite the Dravida Veda the new mantram of “Ramanujadayapatram” should be pronounced.
The plea of the Thenkalais in this suit is that according to the mamul the mantram of “Srisailesadayapatram” should be cited in the Vedantachariar Sannadhi of above temple also, in the same way as such a “Srisailesadayapatram” citation is made in the Vedantachariar Sannadhi of all the remaining 17 shrines of Vishnu. This is all the purpose of this suit.
I now beg leave to submit my reply to the appeal arzi (petition). Item 1-In this item, I need not answer either, the matter complained of against Kamasami Naiker, who is neither the plaintiff nor the defendant in this suit, or the allegation that the Collector bent himself to sneh fraudulent acts, and passed his decision.
The Collector’s decision is (Exhibit) No. 38. The witnesses, who have testified to such decision having been acted upon are Vadakalai Varadaraja Pattar (Exhibit 40), Vadakalai Srinivasa Paltar (Exhibit 48) and Venka tesa Pattar (Exhibit 41). This is fully proved by depositions of these witnesses. The main support of the Collector’s decision is the agreement (Exhibit 22) executed in favor of Athan Joer, Chief of the respondents’ faction, by Thirumalai Thatha Chariar, Chief of the appellants’ faction in the matter of the mantram in dispute; the innbazarnamah (Exhibit 24) written by the General public (Pologo Modai Kudigal) of Conjesveram about the mantram in dispute; and the exhibits referred to in the above decision, namely Sannad (Exhibit 60) granted by Mr. Auedison (?) when he was Collector; the plaint and the written statements of answer of the parties to C. P.