Order.- This Civil Revision by the plaintiffs in the suit is directed against an order of the learned District Judge of Tiruchirappalli, who accepted an order of the trial Court returning the plaint on the view that the suit would not be maintainable in view of section 63(e) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The plaintiffs, who sued for themselves and for certain villagers, claimed that the right of doing Moopu service in the Mariyamman temple at Samayapuram vests in the pallars of three main villages, namely, (1) V. Thuraiyur,(2) Mahalikudi (Narasingamangalam forming part of Mahalikudi) and (3) Marudur. The service is said to consist of cleaning the streets, guiding the temple car and doing other miscellaneous work. For these services, emoluments are provided. There is a Nandavanam, for which the patta stands in the name of the pallars of the Villages. Service, for the purpose of convenience, was rendered by pallars in turns of one year. As per the arrangements made between pallars of the villages, the right to do Moopu service from 1960 to 1961 vested in the pallars of V. Thuraiyur. Every year the villagers have got a right in turn to appoint one of their own men as leader, who has got to do the service. It is alleged that the entire village consists of about 60 heads of pallars. They used to convene meetings of their Village community and elect their leader and maintain accounts. The plaint further alleges that the first defendant is not entitled to the office of Moopu and act against the interests of the pallar community of V. Thuraiyur, On these allegations, the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that the pallar community of the V. Thuraiyur village has got a right to do the Moopu service in the temple, and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the exercise of their right. They also prayed for a further declaration that the first plaintiff is entitled to the Moopu service, as the duly elected leader of the pallar community of V. Thuraiyur and that the first defendant should be prevented from interfering with him in receiving the emoluments from the 2nd defendant for doing the service. The first defendant traverses these allegations and denies that the villagers have either a right to appoint a leader or to remove the first defendant from doing the service. The first defendant traverses these allegations and denies that the villagers have either a right to appoint a leader or to remove the first defendant from doing the service. He asserts that the Moopu service has been done by him and before him, his brother and father, and the right has been in his family from time immemorial. The 2nd defendant, which is the Devasthanam, took the plea that the suit would be barred by section 63 of the Act, as it relates to a dispute regarding honours, emoluments, perquisites, to which the plaintiffs claimed to be entitled in the suit temple and on the usage regarding the same. The Devasthanam further pleads in its written statement that it has the right to do all that is necessary for the proper and efficient performance of the services, and in case there is dispute between the villagers, it is open to the Devasthanam to have the services rendered by sircar nominee. The learned District Judge with reference to the question whether the suit falls within the purview of section 63(e) expressed the view that the question is essentially a matter that has got to be proved by the established usage in the institution and that is a matter that falls directly within the scope of the latter part of clause (e) of section 63. He went on to say: “The controversy between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the first defendant on the other is one that falls under the first part of the above clause, the controversy being whether the elected person is entitled to do the service and receive the perquisites or whether the customary Moopanar who is generally held to be the leader of the community is entitled to that right.” In the circumstances he was of opinion that the authority competent to decide the dispute is the Deputy Commissioner under section 63 of the Act, and the suit would, therefore, be barred under section 108. I am afraid the view of the learned District Judge cannot be accepted. There is here no controversy about the office or the emoluments attached to the office, in relation to the services rendered in exercise of the right under the office. I am afraid the view of the learned District Judge cannot be accepted. There is here no controversy about the office or the emoluments attached to the office, in relation to the services rendered in exercise of the right under the office. The question, as is clear from the pleadings, is confined to the rival claim, whether the office of Moopanar is vested in the community of pallars or whether the first defendant is entitled to it as of right. The 2nd defendant further claims that if, because of a dispute over the office, there is the necessity, it should be open to it to make arrangements for doing the service by employing a sircar nominee. If there is no dispute as to the character of the office and the emoluments payable in respect of it, I do not see how the controversy in the suit will fall within the purview of the first part or the second part of section 63(e). Nowhere does it appear from the pleadings either in the plaint or in the written statement that the usage or custom of the Devasthanam governs the vesting of the right to the office either in the community or in the first defendant. No one says that, if a particular person is entitled to the office he is not also entitled to the emoluments. I am of the view, therefore, that where the controversy centres round as to which of the rival claimants to the office is entitled to it, it squarely does not fall within the ambit of section 63 0). In my opinion, the principle of Sastri Ammal v. Pravalavarna Naicker1, will govern the matter. The learned District Judge sought to distinguish this case on the ground that there it was the common case of both parties that the office was hereditary. But the point was missed by him that here too there is no dispute as to the character or the existence of the office or the right to emoluments attached to the office, and the only controversy is as to which of the rival claimants to the office should succeed. That is a matter for the Civil Court. The petition is allowed. No costs. V.S. ----- Petition allowed.