Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by : The appellant is the plaintiff in the trial Court. The suit properties originally belonged to the appellant and three others. They endowed the same under the original of Ex. A-1 dated 27-4-1944 by way of trust to the Salvation Army for the purpose of organising and conducting congregation prayers in the mode and manner then being practised by the Christian community of Sambavaryadakarai. The then members of the Salvation Army also agreed to have the building conveyed to the Salvation Army so that the Christian paradhana as was then practised by the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai may be conducted and continued in the premises as before. The respondents/defendants representing the Salvation Army are now in possession of the property. The practice of Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai consisted among others the following of baptism by immersion on personal confession of faith and the commemoration of the Lord's death in the breaking of bread on the first day of the week by way of worship in accordance with the practice and rituals adopted world over by Christianity of similar persuasion and sanctioned by the custom among the Christian community at Sambavaravandakarai. The appellant has been following the rituals and practices of baptism and the Lord's supper in the suit property for a long time. Now, the respondents are attempting to dissuade the members of the Christian community from following this practice claiming that this kind of worship is not followed by the Salvation Army. This conduct on the part of the respondents is wholly unwarranted. The Salvation Army accepted the gift on a specific condition of making the property available for the use of conducting the Christian aradhana namely aradhana or worship as then being practised in all its forms by the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai. One Muthiah and Paul Raj instituted O.S. No. 20 of 1978 in a representative capacity in the Court of District Munsif, Shenocottah for injunction against the present respondents from interfering with the rituals and practices of the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai. That suit was dismissed on 27-2-1979 on the preliminary issue of maintainability. That decision does not operate as res judicata in the present suit, which is one for a declaration that the appellant has the right to worship and follow the rituals and practices of the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai in the suit property. 2. That suit was dismissed on 27-2-1979 on the preliminary issue of maintainability. That decision does not operate as res judicata in the present suit, which is one for a declaration that the appellant has the right to worship and follow the rituals and practices of the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai in the suit property. 2. The respondents resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit. The decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1978 operates as res judicata to the present litigation. Under S. 9 of the C.P.C. the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Under Ex. A-1 the suit property was gifted to the Salvation Army which is now represented by the respondents for the purpose of conducting the Christian aradhana. It was not dedicated to the Christian community. At the time of the gift, the donors were in the Salvation Army. The Christian rituals mentioned in Ex. A-1 refer only to the practice allowed by the Salvation Army. That the endowment was for the purpose of conducting aradhana as was then practised by the Christians is not true. The Salvation Army never accepted baptism and the Lord's supper as essential rituals in Christianity. The Army did not practise the rituals of breaking of bread or distributing the pieces of bread, and wine to the members of the congregation as representing the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. The concept of the worshippers consuming the flesh and blood of the Lord even if it be in a symbolical form was not approved by the Salvation Army. At no time, the rituals referred to in the plaint were conducted in the suit buildings. The gift was accepted by the Salvation Army only on the district understanding that the form of worship to be performed in the prayer hall would be in the Christian form as followed by the Salvation Army. 3. The maintainability of the suit under Ss. 9 and 11, C.P.C. was taken up as preliminary issues in the trial Court and negatived, holding that the relief claimed is not of civil nature and the decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1978 operates as res judicata for the trial of the present suit. The appellant plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the Sub-Court, Tonkasi in A.S. No. 30 of 1981 on its file. The appellant plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the Sub-Court, Tonkasi in A.S. No. 30 of 1981 on its file. The lower appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 4. The substantial questions of law raised in this Second Appeal are as under:- 1. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable under S. 9, C.P.C.? 2. Whether the present action is barred by res judicata by reason of Ex. B-2 judgment? 5. The reliefs claimed by the appellant in this action are declaration that he has the right to worship adopting the rituals and practices of the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai in the suit property in the manner followed by him all along and the consequential injunction. The practice of ritual for which he seeks sanction is that of baptism by immersion on personal confession of faith and the commemoration of Lord's death in the breaking of bread. The Courts below had taken the view that the subject-matter of dispute relates only to religious ceremonies without a claim of any office or any emoluments and hence it is not a suit of civil nature as contemplated under S. 9 C.P.C. Mrs. Uma Ramnan, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the property was dedicated under Ex. A-1 gift deed only for the purpose of conducting the Christian aradhana in the mode then prevalent and the Salvation Army accepted the gift on the specific understanding of making the property available for the said purpose, the rituals and practices of baptism and Lord's supper have been observed in the suit property for a long time. The suit was instituted only on account of the attempt on the part of the respondents to prevent the performance of the said rituals and practices. The suit is not one to regulate the religious rites and ceremonies but to establish the time honoured customary rights of worship as recognised in Ex. A-1. The right of an individual to offer worship in a particular form as in the past is a recognised civil right and the appellant is entitled to the protection of the Court in the exercising of his right. It is also her grievance that the Courts below have failed to discuss the various clauses mentioned in Ex. A-1 gift deed. But as it has been pointed out by Mr. It is also her grievance that the Courts below have failed to discuss the various clauses mentioned in Ex. A-1 gift deed. But as it has been pointed out by Mr. S. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, in deciding the preliminary issues the Court is concerned only with the reliefs claimed in the plaint. 6. So, let us now examine whether the right to worship adopting the rituals and practices of the Christian community of Sambavarvadakarai in the suit property is a civil right or not. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Ugam Singh and Mushrimal v. Kesrimal, wherein the respondents instituted the suit for a declaration that they had been carrying on and they were entitled to the worship without interference of the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple named after him at Paroli according to the tenants observed by the Digambri Sect of the Jain religion. They further alleged that the temple was constructed and the idol consecrated according to their sect. The appellants denied that Digambri Sect had any right of worship over the idol or had ever exercised such a right and contended that the idol and the temple is in all respects a temple of the Jain Swetambri Sect. The Supreme Court held that from the pleadings and the controversy between the parties, it was clear that the issue was not one which was confined to merely rites and rituals but one which affected the rights of worship. If the Digambaries have a right to worship at the temple, the attempt of the Swetambaries to claim that idol as heirs is to preclude them from exercising their right to worship with respect to which a civil suit is maintainable under S. 9 of the C.P.C. Evidently this citation cannot help the appellant since the right to worship itself was in dispute in that case whereas in the present case, the area of controversy relates to the ritual of breaking of bread on the first day of the week in the commemoration of Lord's death. 7. In Kuber Mohapatra v. Nilakantheswar Des, 1974 AIR(Orissa) 21, the right to worship and offer bhog to the deity taken out in a procession and other ancillary reliefs were held to be of civil nature and a civil suit for their enforcement was maintainable. 7. In Kuber Mohapatra v. Nilakantheswar Des, 1974 AIR(Orissa) 21, the right to worship and offer bhog to the deity taken out in a procession and other ancillary reliefs were held to be of civil nature and a civil suit for their enforcement was maintainable. The decision recognised the right to take part in public worship either in the temple or of a deity while it is being taken out. On the other hand, the respondents herein do not dispute the right of the appellant to offer worship. What they resist is only the insistence on the part of the appellant that the rituals conducted during worship must be in the particular form they prescribe. 8. In Syed Farzand Ali v. Nasir Beg, 1980 AIR(All) 342, the plaintiffs who appear to be members of the Shia, sect instituted a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain other Muslims who do not belong to their sect from interfering with their right in offering Namaz by reciting the word 'Aameen' loudly during the prayer in a mosque in Mathura. The question whether anybody had such a right was raised as early as 1882 nearly 100 years ago before a Bench of five Judges of the Allahabad High Court, following that Full Bench case, held that the defendants were fully justified by law in entering the mosque, joining the congregation and saying the word 'Aameen' and the relief claimed is a right of civil nature. This decision was cited by learned counsel for the appellant in support of her claim that form of worship is a civil right within the purview of S. 9, C.P.C. But a careful reading of the decision would indicate that it is only an authority for the proposition that Mussalman is entitled to enter a mosque which is dedicated to God and is also entitled to join in the prayers and utter the word 'Aameen' loudly but not with the aim or mala fide intention to disturb the peace of the congregation. Besides the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who rendered the decision has not given any reason for holding that the utterance of the word 'Aameen' is not a ritual or form of prayer but a civil right. 9. Besides the single Judge of the Allahabad High Court who rendered the decision has not given any reason for holding that the utterance of the word 'Aameen' is not a ritual or form of prayer but a civil right. 9. The next case cited is that in Muniandi Kone v. Sri Remanatha Sethupathi, Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Mangalanathaswami Temple, 1982 (1) Mad LJ 20 : 1982 AIR(Mad) 170). Here the exercise of the customary right to take a deity in procession on a particular occasion during an annual festival was disputed on the ground that there had been some breaks in some years and the right was not unconditional and absolute. Held that the suits relating to rites and rituals in a temple are not of a civil nature. However, the right to worship is a civil right which can be agitated in a civil Court. 10. In Nar Hari Shastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee, it was held that the temple of Shri Badrinath being admittedly a public place of worship of the Hindus, the right of entrance into the temple for purpose of 'darshan' or worship is a civil right which flows from the nature of the institution itself and for the acquisition of such rights, no custom or immemorial usage need be asserted or proved. This deals with the right of a devotee to enter into a temple and offer worship and it has no bearing on the present controversy. 11-12. The decision in Chandu Sajan Patel v. Nyahalchand Panamchand, 1950 AIR(Bom) 192, has laid down that every citizen or a community or section of a community has an inherent right to conduct a non-religious procession through a public road and has, therefore, also the right to file a declaratory suit without proof of special damages. The inherent right to conduct a non-religious procession is the controversy in this decision and this has also no relevance to the, present dispute, which relates to the performance of rituals. So except perhaps the decision rendered in 1980 AIR(All) 342 the appellant is unable to show a single authority to hold that performance of a mere ritual is a civil right within the meaning of S. 9, C.P.C. 13. So except perhaps the decision rendered in 1980 AIR(All) 342 the appellant is unable to show a single authority to hold that performance of a mere ritual is a civil right within the meaning of S. 9, C.P.C. 13. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued that civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide questions of ritual in temple except in so far as decision of such questions is incidental to decision of civil rights. In Appadurai Ayyangar v. Annangarachariar, 1939 AIR(Mad) 102, Wordsworth, J. has held that courts in India have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction and they cannot decide questions of ritual in a temple except in so far as the decision to such questions is a necessary incident to the decision of civil rights. A right to worship in a particular temple is a civil right and a right to perform a religious office to which obligations and emoluments are attached is also a civil right. To prescribe forms of prayer, right to religious precedence and questions of that nature do not fall within the purview of the civil Courts. In the present case, the ritual claimed is neither incidental to a question of civil right nor it relates to a religious office to which obligations or emoluments are attached. 14. In Srinivasachari in re. Thatha Desika Thathachariar, (1970) 83 LW 407 (DB), the plaintiff instituted the suit to set aside an order passed by the Commissioner of H.R. and C.E. under S. 62 of H.R. and C.E. Act alleging that according to the tradition when Sri Vedanta Desikar was alive. He used to worship Lord Varadarajaswami at Kancheepuram Temple on his birth day, that it was the established custom and usage to take the idol of Sri Vedantha Desikar on round the various shrines of Alwars and Acharyas. The defendants resisted the suit denying the custom and usage alleged by the plaintiff.