AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiffs allege no cause of action against the defendants. The mere fact that the 2nd defendant passed an order restoring the 1st defendant to his caste would not give the moktesars of the temple any right of civil action. That the 1st defendant''s son entered the temple is no ground of action against the father. We must dismiss the second appeal with costs on this ground. We may, however, point out to the Judge that the right of entry into a temple for worship is a Civil right, Venkatachalapati v. Subbarayadu 13 M.k 293 and that vice versa the authorities of the temple may equally well maintain a Civil suit for injunction and damages against a person who enters without a legal right to do so. Temple case See Sankaralinga Narain v. Rajeswara Dorai 31 M.k 236.
The declaration made by the Judge in favour of the 2nd defendant must be struck out.
The second appeal is dismissed with costs.