Civil right to worship in a temple supports civil court jurisdiction and protection against obstructive alterations.

Interference with devotees' right to worship in a temple was treated as a civil dispute because the claim concerned a legally protected civil right, not merely ritual preference, and the civil court had jurisdiction. The established right of the Digamber sect to worship according to its tenets was upheld on the existing findings, and the appellants were not entitled to alter the idol or temple by placing Chakshus, Dhwajadand, Kalash or locks so as to obstruct that worship. Refusal to receive additional evidence was justified, and the limited morning worship arrangement was regarded as a reasonable accommodation that did not prejudice either sect.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit regarding interference with the devotees' right to worship in the temple disclosed a dispute of civil nature and was cognizable by a civil court; (ii) whether the concurrent findings that the Digamber sect had a right to worship and that the appellants could not alter the idol or temple by placing Chakshus, Dhwajadand, Kalash or locks could be disturbed; and (iii) whether the direction permitting a limited morning period for worship and the refusal to take additional evidence called for interference.

Issue (i): whether the suit regarding interference with the devotees' right to worship in the temple disclosed a dispute of civil nature and was cognizable by a civil court.

Analysis: The pleadings showed that the controversy was not confined to ritual preference but concerned a claimed civil right to worship according to sectarian tenets. Interference with that right by putting Chakshus, Dhwajadand, Kalash or by locking the temple affected the ability of the Digamber devotees to worship as they were entitled to do. A right to worship is a civil right, and interference with it gives rise to a dispute of civil nature within the civil court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable and cognizable by a civil court.

Issue (ii): whether the concurrent findings that the Digamber sect had a right to worship and that the appellants could not alter the idol or temple by placing Chakshus, Dhwajadand, Kalash or locks could be disturbed.

Analysis: The courts below found that the temple was ancient, that there were no Chakshus, Mukat, armlets, Dhwajadand or Kalash on the idol or temple, and that both sects had worshipped there, but the Digamber sect's right to worship according to its tenets was established. The temporary compromise also recognised that right. On those findings, the appellants could not assert a right to change the character of the idol or to obstruct worship by the respondents. The contention based on management, possession or an alleged presumption of ownership did not displace the proved right to worship.

Conclusion: The findings protecting the Digamber devotees' right to worship and restraining alterations to the idol and temple were upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the direction permitting a limited morning period for worship and the refusal to take additional evidence called for interference.

Analysis: The request to adduce further evidence was rejected because the matter could be decided on the existing record, and no sufficient ground for remand or additional evidence was made out. The direction allowing worship during a specified morning period was considered a reasonable accommodation that did not impair the rights of either sect, since both could worship without disturbing the other during the stated time.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the refusal to admit additional evidence or with the modified worship directions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, and the decree protecting the respondents' right of worship and the limited directions governing access to the temple were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a legally asserted right to worship in a temple constitutes a civil dispute cognizable by a civil court, and once that right is established, injunctive relief may be granted to prevent acts that obstruct or alter the exercise of that right.

---