however, that these defendants should not be made liable for costs as they never contested the suit claim. 4. The case of the defendants 4 and 5 is as follows: The plaintiff has no cause of action to sue. He is not even a worshipper in Sri Devaraja- swami Temple. Sri Desikar is not the exclusive Acharya of Vadakalais. The Thenkalais also worship him as one of the Acharyas. He is worshipped in Temples according to the Thenkalai form of worship. It is highly doubtful that he ever composed Tamil songs. Varadarajaswami Temple is not a Vadakalai institution. It is common to both the sects. Adhyapakam service, which is the most important one, belongs to - Thenkalais. They alone are entitled to go in gosliti in front of the Lord. The mantram that should be recited in the Temple of Sri Dasikar is only Thenkalai- mantram, Srisaylasa Dayapatram according to decrees of courts. There is no tradition that Sri Desikar used to worship on his birth days in Varadarajaswami Temple while he was alive. There is a Vedantha Desikar shrine in Devarajaswami Temple and no such clami
JUDGMENT:-
The plaintiffs who are the descendants of one Kotikannikadanam Sri Thatha Dosikan of Conjeeveram, claim for themselves and others belonging to that family the stotrapata miras in the pagoda of Sri Dovaraja Swami and the other minor shrines in Conjeeveram. They allege that it is their duty or their right to recite the Sanskrit stotrams in praise of these various deities at the times and places referred to in the schedule attached to the plaint.
The defendants are some of the Tengalai brahmins of Conjeeveram and they are sued on behalf of all the Tengalais. They have got the adyapakam miras in all those temples i. e., the right to recite the Tamil prabandhams.
It is the plaintiffs’ case that when they recite the stotrams, they are disturbed by the Tengalais reciting their prabandhams, and they accordingly seek for a declaration of their right to recite the stotrams on the occasions referred to in the plaint schedule and also for an injunction to restrain the Tengalais from interfering with their stotrapatam by themselves reciting the prabandham or in any other way.
The defendants contended that there is no such office as alleged by the plaintiffs and there was no income or honour attached to such office and that the recital of the stotrapatam has been given up after 1882 when their right to adyapakam miras was established by the High Court. And they also pleaded limitation. They admitted that before 1892 both Vadagalais and Tengalais together recited stotrams during the processions of the deity; but such recitals were always made in rear of the idol and never in front. The District Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs’ contention that there is such an office as claimed by them and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recite the stotram not on all the occasions referred to in the O. P.