ORDER : Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order of the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam in I.A. No. 9 of 2020 in O.S. No. 52 of 2019 dated 06.09.2021. 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The second defendant in O.S. No. 52 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the revision petitioner/D2 from performing what is known as “Vidayatru Sevai” for Shri Nammazhwar thereby interfering with the plaintiff's right to offer Mandagapadi worship for Shri Nammazhwar on the suit mentioned dates. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 9 of 2020 for rejection of plaint. The IA was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.09.2021. Questioning the same, this civil revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of civil revision petition. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this civil revision petition. 4. The case of the revision petitioner is as follows: Arulmigu Adhinaadhazhwar temple in Azhawarthirunagari is a public temple. During the Tamil month of Vaikasi “Thiruvaikasi Thiruavathara Utsavam” festival is conducted. On the first and second date, there is Mandagapadi for Arulmighu Nammazhvar. The idol of Arulmighu Nammazhvar is taken from the temple to the plaintiff mutt for worship. Enroute, there is a halt at the second defendant mutt. After the second defendant perform their Mandagapadi, it is taken to the plaintiff mutt. This has been going on for quite a few decades. While so, the present suit has been instituted on the premise that the plaintiff mutt alone has the exclusive right to perform Mandagapadi and that permission was given some time in 1998 to enable the second defendant mutt also to perform Mandagapadi and that it has been decided to revoke the said permission. The said decision was duly communicated by the plaintiff to the defendants. Since the defendants have not conceded to the demand, O.S. No. 52 of 2019 was instituted. According to the second defendant, such a suit is not maintainable. This is for more reasons than one. The plaintiff has failed to seek the relief of declaration. The said decision was duly communicated by the plaintiff to the defendants. Since the defendants have not conceded to the demand, O.S. No. 52 of 2019 was instituted. According to the second defendant, such a suit is not maintainable. This is for more reasons than one. The plaintiff has failed to seek the relief of declaration. Secondly, the right of exclusive honour is not a civil right at all. It is only a religious right and if at all it has to be adjudicated, it has to be under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The suit is barred under Section 108 of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the decisions reported in Natesa Udayar and Another vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 and few other case laws. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and allow this civil revision petition. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and it does not warrant interference. He drew my attention to the decision reported in Muniandi Kone and Others vs. Sri Ramanatha Sethupathi and Others, AIR 1982 Mad 170 and few other precedents. His contention is that the suit is maintainable. He called upon this Court to dismiss the civil revision petition. 7. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the case on hand involves the right to perform Mandagapadi. Mandagapadi is a ceremony of receiving the deity at a particular place during the festival. It is however not a mere ceremony or ritual. The purpose of Mandagapadi is to offer worship to the deity. The Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ugamsingh and Others vs. Kesrimal and Others, AIR 1971 SC 2540 held that while disputes pertaining to the rituals or ceremonies alone cannot be adjudicated by the civil courts, right to worship is essentially a civil right, interference with which raises a dispute of civil nature. Of course, the decision reported in Natesa Udayar and Another vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 appears to support the revision petitioner's contention. In the said decision, it was held as follows: “6. Of course, the decision reported in Natesa Udayar and Another vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 appears to support the revision petitioner's contention. In the said decision, it was held as follows: “6. In Arulmigu Kallalagar Devasthanam vs. Seetharaman, (1990) 1 MLJ 97 , the plaintiff sought for a declaration that they are entitled for the suit mandapam, possession of appurtenant 42 cents and to perform mandagapadi every year during Chitra festival. Therefore, the plaintiff in the said suit sought for declaration to perform mandagapadi on the basis of their alleged established right. But, in the instant case, the plaintiff/respondent herein had pleaded specifically in the plaint seeking a declaration as prayed to celebrate Kudiraivahana Mandagapadi as a matter of custom and usage. The plaintiff/respondent herein has thus come with a specific case that they are entitled for the declaration as prayed for as an honour based on custom and usage, and therefore it cannot be disputed that their case is attracted under Section 63(e) of the Act. 7. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute relating to such rights of the plaintiff/ respondent herein can be decided only in appropriate proceedings by the Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner concerned, by exercising the power conferred under Section 63(e) of the Act, as it is not disputed by either party that the suit temple is governed under the provisions of the Act and the trustees have also been appointed to administer the affairs of the temple and properties under the provisions of the Act.” 9. But the decision of Natesa Udayar and Another vs. Adham has a very weak precedential value as there is no reference to the earlier decision reported in Muniandi Kone vs. Sri Ramanatha Sethupathi, AIR 1982 Mad 170 . It is pertinent to note that the said decision is anchored on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ugamsingh and Others vs. Kesrimal and Others, AIR 1971 SC 2540 . I would therefore characterise the decision reported in Natesa Udayar vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 as per incuriam. The core arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 bars the present suit. Section 108 of the Act reads as follows: “108. I would therefore characterise the decision reported in Natesa Udayar vs. Adham, (2002) 2 MLJ 762 as per incuriam. The core arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that Section 108 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 bars the present suit. Section 108 of the Act reads as follows: “108. Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions: No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act.” 10. The question that calls for consideration is whether under Section 63(e) of the Act the issue raised in the suit can be adjudicated by the authority. 11. It is well settled that the authority under the Act in exercise of his power under Section 63 of the Act cannot go into the rival claims. In A. Rajendran vs. The Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department and Ors. (W.P. (MD) Nos. 11977 and 13352 of 2015, dated 10.08.2015), after referring to a catena of case laws, it was held that since there is an inter se dispute between the parties as each one of them is making rival claim as against the other, the concerned authority cannot adjudicate the said issue under Section 63 of the Act. 12. In the case on hand, there is obviously a rival claim between the plaintiff on the one hand and the second defendant mutt on the other. The plaintiff would assert that they had an exclusive right to perform the suit Mandagapadi. The second defendant would assert that they also can perform Mandagapadi on the suit dates. In a case of claim of exclusivity, rival claims are embedded in an assertion of exclusivity. Following the decision mentioned above, I hold that the authority under Section 63(e) of the Act is incompetent to go into the issue. Thus, looked at from any angle, the case of the revision petitioner cannot be supported. The right claimed by the plaintiff is a civil right. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.