Judgment :- 1. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff stated that his family had settled down in Azhakiapandipuram over 700 years ago, that it enjoyed a prestige and place in the local community, that when the image of Veeravara Nanka Amman of the temple there was taken out on procession at the time of festival it was usual to give a member of the plaintiff's family Pavada Prasadam (]mhmS {]kmZw) consisting of three beetle leaves, one arecanut, one cocoanut and three plantain fruits when the procession reached the northern gate, that the trustees were bound to give the same and the plaintiff's family was entitled to get it, that this was the practice from time immemorial, that during the procession on 21.10.1116, the defendants who were the trustees of that temple declined to give the prasadam to the plaintiff, that this caused mental agony to the members of the family, and that the plaintiff was entitled to get a declaration of the right to receive this prasadam. He also claimed Rs. 200/- on account of damages for mental agony. The defendants denied the privilege claimed by the plaintiff. 2. The trial court found that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed the same. In the lower appellate court the plaintiff had given up the right for damages and pressed the reliefs for a declaration of his right to get the prasadam. The lower appellate court accepted the appeal and gave the plaintiff the declaration as prayed for. The appellants before this court contended that the suit was not for a right to property or to an office, and so it was not a suit of a civil nature, and hence not maintainable. S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code was relied in support of this contention. What the plaintiff claimed was a right to get prasadam when the deity was taken in procession outside the temple as could be seen from the ground alleged by the plaintiff in paragraph 2 of the plaint which ran thus: The right to receive the prasadam was therefore a dignity said to be attached to the family because of its standing in the locality. It is not because of any office rendered or to be rendered by the plaintiff's family. Suits for vindication of a mere dignity attached to an office are not suits of a civil nature. It is not because of any office rendered or to be rendered by the plaintiff's family. Suits for vindication of a mere dignity attached to an office are not suits of a civil nature. It has been held in Sri Sankar v. Sidha, reported at page 198 in 3 MIA that a claim by a Swami (arch-priest) that he is entitled to be carried on the high road of a town or village in a palanquin on ceremonial occasions will not be entertained by a civil court. What was claimed by the plaintiff in that case was a mere mark of honour appended to the office of a Swami. The principles governing the decision in suits of this kind are enumerated at page 25 of Mulla's treatise on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1953 Edition. Thus the duty of individuals to submit to and perform certain religious observances in accordance with the ritual or conventional practices of their race or sect is, in the absence of express legal recognition and provision, an imperfect obligation of a moral and not a civil nature. Of such obligations the present civil courts cannot take cognizance. Following this rule, the courts have declined to entertain claims made by holders of religious office to precedence in worship, such as a claim to be the first to worship the deity and to receive gifts of rice and cocoanuts on certain public religious ceremonies. They have likewise declined to decide disputes as to precedence or privilege between purely religious functionaries. It is important to note that the suit in such of the above cases was not to establish, a right to an office, but for a declaration that the plaintiff was, by virtue of his office, entitled to certain tokens of dignity or to votive offerings. In other words, the suit was not for a claim to an office but to vindicate an alleged dignity attached to an office. A suit for an office is of a civil nature, but a suit for vindication of a mere dignity though, connected with an office, is not. 3. The plaintiff in this case has no office. To constitute an office, the one, if not the essential, thing is the existence of a duty or duties attached to the office which the office-holder is under a legal obligation to perform and the non-performance of which is visited by penalties. 3. The plaintiff in this case has no office. To constitute an office, the one, if not the essential, thing is the existence of a duty or duties attached to the office which the office-holder is under a legal obligation to perform and the non-performance of which is visited by penalties. The rendering of a voluntary service cannot constitute an office. See Venkatachariar v. Ponappa, AIR 1919 Mad. 1026. The same principle was enunciated in AIR 1944 Madras reported at page 416 (Gopanna v. Ramaswami). The case Thirumalai Alwar v. Srinivasachaiar, reported at page 903 of AIR 1917 Madras, relied on by the plaintiff does not help him in any way. There the suit itself was for the declaration of the right to exclusive performance of Mandapa Paddi, that is a ceremony performed on a particular day at a periodical festival in a Hindu temple, to bear the expenses of the ceremony and receive the honours connected therewith, which it was not in the discretion of the temple trustees to allow or not. It was held that the right was of a civil nature and that the suit was maintainable. The decision rested on the consideration that the right agitated arose out of a trust or implied contract. But this has nothing to do with the question at issue in the present case. Where the plaintiff, because of his status of his family in the locality, claims the dignity to receive the prasadam it cannot be said that it is attached to any office and so the right agitated is not of a civil nature as mentioned in S. 9 of the C.P.C. As religious honours involve no civil right, a civil court cannot entertain a suit for declaration of one's right to such honours. See also Chenna Basappa v. Sree Sankara Bharathi Swami, reported at page 493 of AIR 1929 Madras, and Chitti Babu v. Venkatasubbu reported at page 264 of AIR 1933 Madras. 4. The claim advanced by the plaintiff in this case is one to a dignity said to be attached to his family and a suit for a declaration of the same would not lie. The decree passed by the lower appellate court is therefore set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout. Allowed.