Madras High Court
P.Seethalakshmi vs The Commissioner on 2 April, 2026
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 19.02.2026
Pronounced On : 02.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)Nos.25, 396, 397, 398 and 399 of 2025 and 198, 199, 209 and 210 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2130, 2131, 2211, 2212, 3148, 3149,3151,191 and 192 of 2025
W.A(MD)No.25 of 2025
P.Seethalakshmi Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
3.The Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer,
A/m. Pandimuneeswarar Temple,
Melamadai,
Madurai.
4.R.Lakshmi
5.Ponnupandian
6.P.Jal Veerapandi
7.R.Rajesh Pandi
8.Rishi Pandi
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondents
9.Maruthapandi
(R9 is impleaded as per the order of this
Court dated 05.12.2025 in C.M.P(MD)No.
786 of 2025)
10.P.Manikandan poojari
11.K.Ponnan poojari
12.R.Rebello poojari
(R10 to R12 are impleaded as per the order
of this Court in C.M.P(MD)No.16681 of 2025)
13.P.Sivaji
14.S.Karthick
15.V.K.Pandian
16.P.Veeramalai
17.T.Sankar
18.N.Valli
19.R.Anusankari
20.R.Priya
21.P.M.Chellapandi poojari
22.P.M.Pandiyarajan poojari
23.P.M.Jegadesh Pandian
24.R.Saravana Pandian
25.V.Aarthi
26.P.Malathi Respondents
(R13 to R26 are impleaded as per the order of
this Court dated 19.02.2026 made in C.M.P(MD)
No.366 of 2026)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.8184 of 2022.
For Appellant : M/s.J.Anandhavalli
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 & 8 : M/s.J.R.Annie Abinaya
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For R7 : M/s.A.V.Arun
for
Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar
For R9 : Mr.S.Bageerathan
For 10 to 12 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
For R3, 5 & 6 : No appearance
W.A(MD)No.198 of 2026
Dhanam Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Madurai.
3.Aarthi.V
4.Pandeeswari
5.Pandiyarajan.P.M
6.Ponnu Pandian
7.Lakshmi.R
8.Jayaveerapandi
9.Rishi Pandi
10.Rajesh Pandi Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.6114 of 2024.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.V.Arun
for
M/s.S.M.Arun Kumar
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
W.A(MD)No.199 of 2026
Dhanam Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Madurai.
3.Aarthi.V
4.Pandeeswari
5.Pandiyarajan.P.M
6.Ponnu Pandian
7.Lakshmi.R
8.Jayaveerapandi
9.Rishi Pandi
10.Rajesh Pandi Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.6113 of 2024.
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.V.Arun
for
M/s.S.M.Arun Kumar
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
W.A(MD)No.209 of 2026
P.Pandeeswari Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Madurai.
3.P.M.Veerapandi
4.Mrs.Dhanam
5.Aarthi.V
6.Pandiyarajan.P.M
7.Ponnupandian
8.Lakshmi.R
9.Jayaveerapandi
10.Rishi Pandi
11.Rajesh Pandi Respondents
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.5676 of 2024.
For Appellant : Mr.J.R.Anniee Abinaya
For R1 & R2
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
W.A(MD)No.210 of 2026
P.Pandeeswari Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department, Madurai.
3.P.M.Veerapandi
4.Mrs.Dhanam
5.Aarthi.V
6.Pandiyarajan.P.M
7.Ponnupandian
8.Lakshmi.R
9.Jayaveerapandi
10.Rishi Pandi
11.Rajesh Pandi Respondents
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.5675 of 2024.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.R.Anniee Abinaya
For R1 & R2
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
W.A(MD)No.396 of 2026
V.Aarthi Appellant
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
3.P.M.Veerapandi
4.Mrs.Dhanam
5.P.Pandeeswari
6.Pandiyarajan.P.M
7.Ponnupandian
8.Lakshmi.R
9.Jayaveerapandi
10.Rishi Pandi
11.Rajesh Pandi
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Respondents
12.P.M.Chellapandi
13.Saravana Pandian
14.Rebello Respondents
(R12 to R14 are impleaded as per the common
order dated 18.07.2025 made in C.M.P(MD)No.3231
and 3623 of 2025)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.31355 of 2023.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.Deepamathi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.A.V.Arun
for
M/s.S.M.Arun Kumar
For R5 : M/s.J.R.Annie Abinaya
For R12 to R14 : M/s.J.Anandhavalli
W.A(MD)No.397 of 2026
M.Jagadeesh Pandian Appellant
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Tourism, Culture and Religious
Endowment (RE3.1) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department,
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
4.Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Thirukovil,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Melamadai,
Madurai.
5.Indira Ammal 5th Respondent
6.Ponnu Pandian
7.R.Lakshmi
8.Jayaveerapandi
9.Rishi Pandi
10.Rajesh Pandi
11.P.M.Chellapandi
12.Saravanapandian
13.Rebello
14.P.M.Pandiarajan
(R6 to R14 are impleaded as per the common order
of this Court dated 18.07.2025 in C.M.P(MD)
Nos.3231 and 3623 of 2025)
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.16375 of 2023.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.J.Anandhavalli
For R1 to R3
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R5 : Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar
W.A(MD)No.398 of 2026
V.Aarthi Appellant
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
3.The Board of Trustees
Arulmighu Pandimuneeswarar Temple,
Melamadai, Madurai-625 020,
Through its Managing Trustee
Ponnu Pandian
4.Mrs.Dhanam Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.31356 of 2023.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.A.V.Arun
for
M/s.M.Arun Kumar
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.399 of 2026
V.Aarthi Appellant
Vs
1.P.M.Pandiarajan
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
4.R.Lakshmi
5.Ponnu Pandian
6.Jayaveerapandi
7.Rajesh Pandi
8.Rishi Pandi
Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this
Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court
dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.31327 of 2023.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
for
M/s.D.Deepamathi
For R1 : Mr.K.Ashik
For R2 & R3 : Mr.R.Baskaran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. J,.)
Prelude:
“Religion is not a cloak for enrichment, nor can piety be promoted for
pecuniary gain. This case typifies the fable of monkeys fighting over bread: the
priests of the shrine of Pandi Muni, revered as the sentinel spirit of Madurai, are
squabbling over the division of devotees’ plate offerings and hundi collections, not
to serve God but solely for their own personal gain and luxurious, lavish lifestyles.
These disputes have now transformed into number of costly litigations, polluting the
religious atmosphere. one such is present litigation relating to issue of hereditary
poosariship”
2. The batch of writ appeals have arisen out of common judgment passed by
the writ Court in batch of writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the
various impugned orders, wherein, their hereditary poosari right of Arulmighu Pandi
Muneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai, were declined by the authorities of
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department vide various impugned
orders and confirmed by the writ Court vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2024.
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.1.For better appreciation of the case, this Court has tabulated the following
particulars of the orders impugned before the writ Court and corresponding writ
appeals:
Name of the Prayer in Writ Appeal Writ Petition Number and Prayer Impugned order
appellant in
W.A.
V.Aarthi 396 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.31355 of 2023 impugned order dated
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the judgment dated To issue writ of certiorari calling for 19.12.2023 in Suo Motu
396 of 2025 10.12.2024 in W.P.(MD).No. the records relating to the impugned Revision 3/2018, D2,
31355 of 2023, on the file of this order dated 19.12.2023 in Suo Motu passed by the 1st
Court. Revision 3/2018, D2, passed by the 1st respondent
respondent and to quash the same
V.AarthiW.A. 398 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.31355 of 2023 impugned order dated
(MD).No.398 of To set aside the order dated To issue writ of certiorari calling for 19.12.2023 in Suo Motu
2025 10.12.2024 passed by W.P. the records relating to the impugned Revision 3/2018/D2
(MD).No.31355 of 2023. order dated 19.12.2023 in Suo Motu passed by the first
Revision 3/2018/D2 passed by the first respondent
respondent
V.Aarthi 399 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.31327 of 2023. impugned order passed
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the order dated To issue writ of certiorari calling for by the first respondent in
399 of 2025 10.12.2024 passed by W.P. the records pertaining to the impugned R.P.No.71 of 2021/D2
(MD).No.31327 of 2023. order passed by the first respondent in dated 19.12.2023 and
R.P.No.71 of 2021/D2 dated quash the same.
19.12.2023 and quash the same.
Dhanam W.A. 198 of 2025 W.P.(MD).N.6114 of 2024 impugned order passed
(MD).No.198 of To set aside the order dated To issue writ of Certiorari, calling for by the 1st respondent
2025 10.12.2024 passed by W.P. the records pertaining to the impugned herein in R.P.No.8 of
(MD).No.6114 of 2024. order passed by the 1st respondent 2021/D2 (Remanded),
herein in R.P.No.8 of 2021/D2 dated 19.12.2023
(Remanded), dated 19.12.2023
Dhanam 199 of 2026 W.P.(MD).No.6113 of 2024 impugned order passed
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the order dated To issue writ of Certiorari, calling for by the 1st respondent
199 of 2026 10.12.2024 passed in W.P. the records pertaining to the impugned herein in Suo-Motu
(MD).No.6113 of 2024. order passed by the 1st respondent Revision No.3 of 2018
herein in Suo-Motu Revision No.3 of D2, dated 19.12.2023
2018 D2, dated 19.12.2023
P.Pandeeswari 209 of 2026 W.P.(MD).No.5676 of 2024 impugned order dated
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the judgment dated To issue writ of certiorari calling for 19.12.2023 in R.P.No.
209 of 2026 10.12.2024 in W.P.(MD).No. the records relating to the common 153 of 2021/D2 passed
5676 of 2024, on the file of this impugned order dated 19.12.2023 in by the respondent
Court. R.P.No.153 of 2021/D2 passed by the
respondent and to quash the same.
P.Pandeeswari 210 of 2026 W.P.(MD).No.5675 of 2024 impugned order dated
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the order dated To issue writ of certiorari calling for 19.12.2023 in Suo-Motu
210 of 2026 10.12.2024 passed in W.P. the records relating to the common Revision 3 of 2018/D2
(MD).No.5675 of 2024 impugned order dated 19.12.2023 in passed by the 1st
Suo-Motu Revision 3 of 2018/D2 respondent
passed by the 1st respondent and quash
the same.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.M.Jegadeesh 397 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.16375 of 2022 impugned proceedings of
Pandian Calling for the records relating to the the first respondent in
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the judgment dated impugned proceedings of the first G.O.Ms.No.139,
397 of 2025 10.12.2024 in W.P.(MD).No. respondent in G.O.Ms.No.139, Tourism Culture and
16375 of 2022, on the file of this Tourism Culture and Religious Religious Endowments
Court. Endowments (R.E.3.1) Department (R.E.3.1) Department
confirming the proceedings of the 2nd confirming the
respondent R.P.No.347/2017/D2 dated proceedings of the 2nd
21.08.2018 confirming the respondent R.P.No.
proceedings of the 3rd respondent 347/2017/D2 dated
dated 03.08.2017 in Na.K.ANo. 21.08.2018 confirming
5218/2017/A1 and quash the same and the proceedings of the 3rd
consequently direct the 4th respondent respondent dated
to permit the petitioner to perform his 03.08.2017 in
turn of pooja in the Temple Arulmighu Na.K.ANo.
Pandi Muneeswarar Thirukovil, 5218/2017/A1
Melamadai, Madurai to receive the
due shares for his turn
P.Seethalakshmi 25 of 2025 W.P.(MD).No.8184 of 2022 the impugned order
W.A.(MD).No. To set aside the order dated Calling for the records relating to the passed by the 1st
25 of 2025 10.12.2024 passed in W.P. impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in R.P.No.
(MD).No.8184 of 2022 on the respondent in R.P.No.145 of 2018 D2, 145 of 2018 D2, dated
file of this Court. dated 31.03.2022 and to quash the 31.03.2022 and to quash
same the same
3.Brief facts of Writ Appeal in W.A(MD).No.25 of 2025 filed by
P.Seethalakshmi:
3.1.The appellant have filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.8184 of 2022
challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.145 of
2018 D2, dated 31.03.2022, with the following averments:
3.2.Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple (hereinafter called for “Temple”)
is a village Temple near Melamadai, Madurai declared as exempted temple as per the
order passed by the first respondent board in O.S.No.453 of 1933 dated 05.09.1935.
The said temple was administrated by its hereditary trustees and poojas were also
performed by the hereditary trustees. Both trusteeship and poojai right are vested
with the family members of the founders of the said temple. Originally the temple
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was administrated by Valliammal who was founder of the temple. After her demise,
her two sons, namely, Bothal poojai and Mahamuni Poojai administered the temple
as hereditary trustees and performed the poojas. After their demise, legal heirs of
Bothal poosari and Mahamuni poosari entered into a compromise to perform the
poojas and to hold trusteeships. As per the compromise, the appellant’s husband,
namely, P.Pandiyan poosari became the trustee cum poosari for the temple and the
pooja weeks were divided into ten weeks on rotation basis and it falls on every
Thursday evening and it continues till next Thursday. This practice is in vogue and
her husband Pandiyan poojai had been performing poojas and received all
emoluments and offerings from the devotees by acting as a chief Managing Trustee
of the temple, till his death on 12.11.2003. After his demise, she submitted
application before the second respondent for recording herself as a trustee on the
principle of next in line of succession under Section 54(1) of the Tamilnadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (herein after called Act, 22/1959).
The first respondent vide order dated 04.12.2003, permitted her to perform pooja
service for the weeks of Pandiyan poosari. The said order was not passed under
Section 55(1) of the Act, 22/1959. The said order dated 04.12.2003 had been
challenged by one Maruthupandi, claiming to be adopted son of her husband
Pandiyan Poojai by way of appeal before the first respondent in A.P.No.19/2003/2
dated 06.05.2004 and the said order was challenged in W.P.No.14288 of 2004 before
this Court. There was an interim order in the said writ petition wherein a direction
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was issued to share the offering by both. Aggrieved over the same, both the appellant
and Maruthupandi had filed the writ appeal in W.A.No.1590 of 2011 and 1995 of
2011 and the same was heard together and the writ appeal filed by the appellant was
allowed and writ appeal filed by the alleged adopted son Maruthupandi was
dismissed. There was a direction issued against Maruthupandi to establish his right
of adopted son before the civil Court and also direction was issued recognizing the
appellant’s poojai right and trusteeship till the establishment of the right of the
Maruthupandi. Maruthupandi also preferred S.L.P, before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, Maruthupandi filed suit in
O.S.No.92 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai for the
appropriate relief by impleading the appellant and departments also. The suit was
decreed by judgment dated 15.03.2019. The appellant had filed appeal suit in
A.S.No.62 of 2019 before this Court and also Maruthupandi filed Cross Appeal.
(MD).No.3 of 2020 before this Court and both were heard together and this Court
reserved the same for judgment. Pending civil litigation, she was enjoying the fruits
of the plate collection and also received the proportionate share of the Hundi
Collection as per the order passed in O.A.No.77 of 1980. While so, the Secretary to
the Government initiated proceedings against the 8 hereditary trustees of the temple
alleging misconduct by issuing charge memo dated 02.03.2016 and also kept under
interim suspension in view of the misconduct pending enquiry. Following the same,
a fit person was appointed by invoking the power under Section 45(1) of the Act,
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22/1959 by order dated 12.05.2016. Subsequently, on 13.05.2016, the 8 hereditary
trustees were removed from the office and the same was challenged by them, in
C.M.A., before this Court and the same was allowed by order dated 28.03.2017 and
remanded to the Secretary to the Government for fresh disposal. In the meantime, on
16.03.2017, order was passed restraining all the poosaris from taking plate
collections. The appellant challenged the said proceedings in O.S.No.83 of 2017, on
the file of the Sub Court, Melur and obtained the interim stay of the operation of the
order and hence, she continued as a poosari. Thereafter, on 15.06.2017, the appellant
was removed from the post of poojai stating that she had attained age of
superannuation on 28.02.2011 itself as per Rule 5 of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious
Institutions (Officers and Servants) Rules, 1964, (herein after called Rules 1964).
The same was challenged by the appellant and this Court allowed the said writ
petition, with a direction to issue notice and conduct enquiry after hearing the
objection of the appellant and directed to pass suitable order. Subsequently, on
26.03.2018, she was called upon to show cause why she should not be relieved from
the poosariship on the ground of superannuation. She had sought one month time for
submission of the explanation in view of the pendency of the appeal before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein, she challenged the order passed by this Court in
C.R.P.(MD).No.743 of 2017 wherein, this Court accepted the case of the department
and stuck off the plaint filed by the appellant in O.S.No.83 of 2017 in which the
appellant challenged the order of the department restraining her from taking plate
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
collections. But, the third respondent passed the order on 26.07.2018 relieving her
from poosariship. The said order was challenged by her in A.P.No.5 of 2018 before
the second respondent under Section 55(4) of the Act 22/1959. The same was
allowed by the second respondent and remanded the matter to the file of the original
authority for fresh consideration. The said order was challenged by the appellant in
R.P.No.135 of 2018 and there was no order of stay. Therefore, the third
respondent/original authority issued notice for her appearance on 09.11.2018. Once
again she has not appeared in view of the pendency of the revision. Therefore, on
13.11.2018. The order was passed relieving her from poojariship holding that she
was not entitled to function as a poojari as he crossed the 60 years of Age as per Rule
5 of 1964. The appellant challenged the said order in R.P.No.145 of 2018. In the
meantime, in S.L.P. filed by the removed hereditary trustees, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was pleased to set aside the proceedings of the authorities prohibiting the
poosaris from receiving the plate collection and also appointed the respondent Nos.4
to 8 as trustees for the temple. The first respondent confirmed the order of the
authority and dismissed the R.P.No.145 of 2018 dated 31.03.2022. The same was
impugned before the writ Court in W.P.(MD)No.8184 of 2022.
4.Brief facts of Writ Appeal in W.A(MD).No.397 of 2025 filed by
Jegadeesh Pandian:
4.1.The appellant has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.16735 of 2022
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.P.No.347/2017/D2, dated 21.08.2018, confirming the proceedings of the third respondent
dated 03.08.2017 in Na.Ka.No.5218/2017/A1 and consequential relief permitting
him to perform his turn of pooja in the temple and receive the due share for his turn
with the following averments:
4.2.Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple (hereinafter called “Temple”) is a
village Temple near Melamadai, Madurai declared as exempted temple as per the
order passed by the first respondent board in O.S.No.453 of 1933 dated 05.09.1935.
The said temple was administrated by its hereditary trustees and poojas were also
performed by the hereditary trustees. Both trusteeship and poosariship was vested
with the family members of the founders of the said temple. Originally the temple
was administrated by Valliammal who was founder of the temple. After her demise,
her two sons, namely, Bothal poojari and Mahamuni poojari administered the temple
as hereditary trustees and performed the poojas. The said Mahamuni poosari had five
wives, namely, Ulagammal, Sarojammal, Anandhavalli, Indhira and Dhanam. The
second wife Sarojammal has no children and the remaining wives have children
named hereunder:
First wife Second wife Third wife Fourth wife Fifth Wife
Ulagammal Sarojammal Anandavalli Indhira Dhanam
Rajapoojari No issues Chellapandi poosari (i)Porkai Pandian (i)Pandiarajan
(ii)Jegadeesh Pandian (ii) Veerapandian
(iii)Babu Pandian
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.3.The said Mahamuni poosari, executed a Will dated 16.08.1985,bequeathing his trusteeship and poosariship of his ten weeks turn in the following
terms:
Name Turn
Rajapoosari First week
Chellapandi poosari Second Week
(i)Porkai Pandian
(ii)Jegadeesh Pandian Third Week
(iii)Babu Pandian
Pandiarajan Fourth week
Sarojammal Fifth Week
and the remaining week should rotate in the same manner. It is also provided in the
said Will that after the demise of Sarojammal, her turn would pass or to all the above
legal heirs on rotation basis. That being the arrangement, in the year 2007 Raja
poosari had filed the suit in O.S.No.257 of 2007 disputing the other wives’ status
claiming that he alone is entitled for the entire poojai murai and share. The said suit
ended in a compromise as if Sarojammal herself agreed to give her share to one of
the sons of Rajapoosari, namely, Rebello after her demise. Subsequently, the said
Sarojammal had filed suit in O.S.No.191 of 2008 to declare the said compromise
decree in O.S.No.257 of 2007 as null and void. Similarly, P.M.Veerapandian also
filed similar suit in O.S.No.43 of 2011. Sarojammal died on 12.04.2011 and hence,
her suit was dismissed as abated and the other suit was pending. After the death of
21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant’s brother Porkai Pandian, he was recorded as trustee cum poojai onbehalf of his branch. But, his brother’s wife Malathi, approached the third respondent
to record her name as a trustee under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22/1959 and issue
cheque towards her share without giving the same in the name of the appellant. The
third respondent by order dated 28.11.2014 declined her request to record her as a
trustee under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22/1959 but, ordered to issue cheque in her
favour for her turn. In the meantime, the department as stated above in W.A.
(MD).No.25 of 2025 appointed a fit person terminating the hereditary ship and
ordered and stopped the payment of Hundi Income. Further, on 03.08.2017, the third
respondent declined to consider his request dated 7.10.2016 to allow him to perform
poojas on the ground that under Section 55(2) of the Act, 22/1959 hereditary
succession to the poosariship had been abolished. The same was challenged by him
in W.P.(MD).No.15029 of 2017 and this Court directed him to avail alternative
remedy by order dated 20.09.2017 and the same was confirmed in W.A.(MD).No.
1321 of 2017. Thereafter, he filed revision before the second respondent in R.P.No.
347 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 21.08.2018. He filed W.P.(MD).No.
2380 of 2018 challenging the same and subsequently withdrew it reserving his
liberty to file review before the first respondent and the first respondent vide
impugned G.O.Ms.No.139 dated 29.06.2022 dismissed the review also. Challenging
the same, he filed the writ petition W.P.(MD).No.16735 of 2022. He also stated that
some of the officials lodged false criminal case as if he committed theft of Hundi
22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Income and thereafter he got acquittal on 15.05.2016 in C.C.No.84 of 2016. Hefurther stated that his wife Pandiammal had given request to permit her to do his turn
of Poojas and filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.10211 of 2018 seeking
mandamus for the said relief and this Court passed interim order on 17.05.2018 and
permitted her to do pooja and collection were ordered to be kept in a separate
account. Pending writ petition, his mother Indhirani filed impleading petition to
claim her independent right for performing poojas and for the respective share and
this Court also passed the interim arrangement by order dated 14.11.2022.
5.Brief facts of Writ Appeal in W.A(MD).Nos.396, 398 and 399 of 2025
filed by Aarthi:
5.1.The appellant/Aarthi being wife of Veerapandi poosari, who was one of
the son’s of the fifth wife Mahamuni poojari namely, Dhanam, who was the appellant
in W.A.(MD).Nos.198 and 199 of 2026 filed three writ appeals, challenging the
dismissal of the writ petition filed by her in W.P.(MD).Nos.31327 of 2023, 31356 of
2023 and 31355 of 2023. Dhanam filed writ appeal in W.A.(MD).Nos.199 of 2026
against the dismissal of order in W.P.(MD).No.6113 of 2024 and W.A.(MD).No.198
of 2026 against the dismissal order in W.P.(MD).No.6114 of 2024. After the demise
of Veerapandi poosari i.e., on 05.03.2020, she made a request on 07.09.2020 to make
payment of Hundi share of her husband and after enquiry, the second respondent
passed order on 21.12.2020 that she was entitled for her husband’s Pooja turn and
23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
she was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to her mother-in-law, namely, Dhanam. The saidDhanam filed the review petition before the first respondent in R.P.No.8 of 2021,
challenging the order dated 21.12.2020. Aarthi also filed R.P.No.71 of 2021 stating
that her request for the trustee under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22/1959 was not
considered and 50% was arbitrarily fixed. Pandeeswari, sister-inlaw of Aarthi,
namely daughter of Dhanam and sister of the deceased Veerapandian filed R.P.No.
153 of 2021 challenging the order dated 21.12.2020. Common order was passed on
13.01.2023 dismissing all revisions with a direction to the Board of trustees to
deposit the share of the deceased Veerapandian in a separate account till the disposal
of the suo motu revision. The order was challenged in W.P.(MD).No.3167 of 2023
and the same was remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration with
direction to give 25% of the amount of the Veerapandian to Dhanam. Pandiarajan
brother of the deceased Veerapandian questioned the common order dated
13.01.2023 on the ground that the ladies could not be allowed to do pooja and he
ought to have been permitted to do pooja for his brother’s turn. The said writ petition
in W.P.(MD).No.8093 of 2023 also was closed by order in W.P.(MD).No.3167 of
2023.
5.2.Aggrieved over the same, writ appeal in W.A.(MD).Nos.1046 of 2023,
1014 of 2023 have been filed seeking direction to dispose of the R.P.No.8 of 2021,
71 of 2021 and 153 of 2021 within a period of four weeks. The first respondent
24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conducted an enquiry, and disposed the above revision along with the suo moturevision No.3 of 2018, wherein, the suo motu revision was taken up against the order
passed in favour of the deceased Veerapandi on 29.11.2014 to disburse the Hundi
share to him. Therefore, Aarthi filed W.P.(MD).No.31356 of 2023 questioning the
order passed in R.P.No.71 of 2021 dated 09.12.2023. W.P.(MD).No.31355 of 2023
has been filed challenging the order passed in suo motu revision No.3 of 2018 dated
19.12.2023. W.P.(MD).No.31327 of 2023 has been filed challenging the order
passed in R.P.No.71/ 2021/D2 dated 19.12.2023 and quash the same so far as the
direction issued to the Chairman of Board of Trustees.
5.3.Dhanam has filed writ petition W.P.(MD).No.6113 of 2024 challenging
the suo motu revision No.3 of 2018 dated 19.12.2023 and W.P.(MD).No.6114 of
2024 challenging the R.P.No.8/ 2021/D2 dated 19.12.2023.
5.4.Pandeeswari has filed writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5675 of 2024 against
the suo motu revision No.3 of 2018 dated 19.12.2023 and W.P.(MD).No.5676 of
2024 challenging the R.P.No.153/2021/D2 dated 19.12.2023.
6. In all the cases,the department filed counter affidavit’s justifying the reasons
stated in the impugned orders and stated that they are not entitled for the hereditary
poosariship in view of the amendment under Section 55 of the Act, 22/1959
25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
abolishing the hereditary poosariship and the constitutional validity of the saidamendment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So far as the claimant who
had reached the age of 60 years are not entitled as superannuation age was fixed as
60 years as per the Rule 1964.
7.Since the issue was related to the applicability of the Section 55(2) of the
Act, 22 of 1959 and the Rule 1964, the appellant in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025
impleaded all the persons who have the right of poosariships as well as hereditary
trusteeship and this Court allowed the impleading petition and heard the matter in
length requesting all the counsel to address whether the order passed by the
department that hereditary trusteeship and the hereditary poosariship cannot he
availed by the above temple is correct or not?
8. All the learned counsel representing the Trustees/Poosari’s in one voice
argued that they were not appointed under Section 55 of the Act, 22 of 1959 and they
claimed the right under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and their claim under
Section 54(1) of the Act 22 of 1959 was considered and they were allowed to
perform poojas under the dual capacity, namely, hereditary trustees and as poojai.
Therefore, abolition of the hereditary poosariship has no application to the temple in
question. They relied the judgment of this Court in the case of Babugurukkal v. The
Commissioner for HR& EC reported in 1964 2 MLJ 384 and in the case of
26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Venkataraman vs. Thangappa Gounder reported in AIR 1972 Madras 119 (DB)
and argued that in the case of the village temples, the poosariship cum trusteeship
always vested with the same family and descended from father to son. Likewise, in
this case except the family of Valliammal no other person performed poojas.
Therefore, they vehemently contended that the impugned order was passed without
due application of the provision of law and the precedents cited supra. The writ
Court also failed to consider the same in proper prospective.
8.1.The learned counsel also would submit that in the Seshammal Case, the
Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, specifically laid down the law
that in the case of customs or usage established to claim hereditary poosariship, there
is no scope for the applicability of the amended provision of abolition of the
hereditary poosariship.
8.2.The learned counsel also would submit that Rules 1964 has no application
to the present case for the reason that new Rule 2020 was brought by repealing the
said Rule. Even otherwise, since they were not appointed as per Rule as a poosari the
department has no right over the administration of the temple in question which was
already exempted in the year 1935 from the purview of the Act.
8.3.Some of the learned counsels appearing for the female members of the
27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
family would submit that, the incongruous argument made by the male member of
the family that female members has no right to perform the poojas in the temple is
incorrect and also not legally sustainable. Earlier one Valliammal performed poojas
and after demise other female members of the family were performing pooja as and
when the turn of their family fall due as per the rotation.
9.The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that none of the
appellants were appointed as a hereditary trustee of the temple. They used to apply
after the death of their family members to recognize them as trustees. Those
applications were considered, on few occasions and rest were rejected. So far as
Seethalakshmi is concerned, she never was recognized as a trustee and her request to
appoint her as a trustee was negatived on earlier occasion and she was only allowed
to collect the pooja amount and at no point of time she was allowed to act as a
hereditary trustee. In this case, the subject temple is a notified public temple and the
precedent relied upon by the learned counsel has no application to the present case.
Only in case of small village temples, this Court on the based on facts had
recognized the dual status, namely, hereditary trusteeship and poosariship.
9.1.The learned Additional Advocate General also would submit that
Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswar Temple is located at the heart of the temple city
Madurai and one of the landmarks for the city. Considering the large amount of the
28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plate collection and Hundi collection and taking into account that huge number of
devotees are thronging everyday, more particularly, on Tuesday’s, Friday’s,
Saturday’s and Sunday’s and offer plate contribution and Hundi contribution to the
tune of more than Rs.6,00,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crores) per year, the writ Court
directed the department to make necessary arrangement in order to control the
siphoning off the amount by the appellants and other private respondents. The
learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the impugned order passed
by the department is in accordance with law and the same was properly considered
by the writ Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the
authorities confirmed by the writ Court.
10.One of the learned counsel for the appellant’s also submitted that earlier the
authorities removed the trustees on the charge of mismanagement and this Court
directed the Secretary to the Government to consider the charges after giving
adequate opportunities to all the trustees with a direction to manage the affairs of the
temple with the committee constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including one
P.M.Chellapandi Poojai and Saravanapandian to manage the affairs till the disposal
of the appeal filed by the Government. The same also was not properly considered by
the writ Court.
11.This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side and
29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
perused the materials available on records and the precedents relied upon by them.
12.Discussion: nature of the orders impugned before writ court
The claim made by legal heirs of Periyanan and Mahamuni poosaris seeking a
share in the hundi collections asserting a right of hereditary poosariship over the
temple was declined. The departmental authorities further held that, in terms of the
rule 1964 Archakas and Poosaris are treated as servants of the temple and they
are under the control of the department, and the prescribed age of retirement for
such servants is 60 years. Consequently, none of the claimants can continue to assert
rights beyond the said age. The impugned order also records that the reliance placed
by the claimants upon the order passed in O.A.No.77 of 1980 dated 11.10.1981 is
misconceived. The said order was held to be a judgment in personam and not a
judgment in rem, and therefore cannot confer enforceable rights upon the present
claimants who were not parties to those proceedings.
12.1.At the outset, this Court expresses its dis-pleasure over the manner in
which the litigations were filed by the appellants and other private respondents
without correctly disclosing the relevant provision of the Act, 22 of 1959 and the
material portion of the earlier order of this Court and for making misleading
statement as if they had obtained orders recognizing them as hereditary trustees and
misconceived the expression i.e., exempted temple without properly considering the
30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act, 22 of 1959. This Court also disheartened by the act of the authorities for,
whenever they received application involving dispute of trusteeship, they without
giving notice to the rival parties and without directing the parties to get civil Court
orders, had passed orders presumably for extraneous consideration. This has forced
rival parties to file revision petition and further appeal before the authorities and also
writ petitions. With this observation, this Court frames the following points for
determination:
(i)Whether the appellants and private respondents in W.A.(MD).No.25 of
2025 claiming right as legal heirs of Valliammal are entitled to continue as Poosaris,
notwithstanding the proceedings of grave charge of mismanagement in view of the
abolition of hereditary succession in poosariship as per the amendment to Section 55
of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, abolishing hereditary
rights:
(ii)When the claim of the appellants as hereditary trustees of the present
public Temple vested with the next line of successors of Valliammal under Section
54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959, upon the demise of their branch representative, whether
the HR & CE department is correct in passing the impugned order invoking
provision of the 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and Tamil Nadu Religious Servants Rules,
1964?
13.To decide the issue, the family tree of the appellants is necessary. For the
31
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sake of convenience and discussion, the extract the family tree is provided
hereunder:
14.Discussion: Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and the petitioners
32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plea:
Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple is situated at Mela Madai Village once
the outskirts of Madurai Town. The origin of the temple and the village is not clearly
known. However, records available from proceedings commencing from the year
1925 indicate that one Pandian Kodangi functioned as the sole trustee as early as
from the year 1800. After Pandian Kodangi, the trusteeship was vested with
Periyasamy. After the death of Periyasamy, the trusteeship has gone to his eldest son.
Thereafter, the trusteeship passed on to Valliammal. There was a dispute whether the
temple is public or private and the same was resolved in A.S.No.1 of 1925 on the file
Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. The learned Additional Sub Judge, Madurai in
A.S.No.1 of 1925 had held that temple was public temple and the trusteeship was
with the members of the family though the succession to the office Poojari was not
according to the law of Primogeniture. In the year 1933, on the basis of the report
made by the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments for Madurai
District, the Board of the then HR&CE Department in its Memo in O.A.No.459 of
1933 dated 20.09.1933 directed notice to the poosari /trustee Valliammal, in view of
the mismanagement of the temple as to why a proper trustee should not be appointed
and other orders should not be passed in the interest of the temple. Valliammal
appeared and denied the mismanagement and claiming that the temple was a
excepted one as trusteeship was hereditary. The Board accepted the contention and
declared the temple is excepted temple and found no circumstances for framing a
33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
scheme then and also directed that the trustees should maintain proper account andsubmit the same periodically for scrutiny of the board and administer the temple
affairs without giving room to any complaint and failing to do so which proceedings
for settlement of a scheme will be initiated. Therefore, the temple came under the
control and supervision of the Board from 1935 onwards. After Valliammal her two
sons namely, Pandian @ Botha poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari acted
as trustees on rotation basis. Pandian @ Bodha poosari died and hence, there was
dispute between the Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari and the male lineal
descendants of Pandian @ Bodha poosari. Subsequently, the mis-mangement
continued and the proceedings were initiated by the Department of HR&CE and the
same was challenged before the Principal Bench of Madras High Court and the claim
of the then trustees was rejected and the W.A.No.487 of 1969 was also filed. Pending
the same, the son of Pandian poosari, namely, P.Veeramalai had filed the suit to
declare his right of hereditary trusteeship by impleading the legal heirs of Pandian
poosari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari and other minor legal heirs of the
Srimnathi Mariyammal, namely, wife of the second son of Pandian poosari and in the
said Suit in O.S.No.383 of 1973 compromise decree was passed and the terms of the
compromise are as follows:
That the plaintiff, defendants 1, 3,4, 5 and defendants 6 to 10
heirs decessed 2nd defendant are entitled to perform Pujas and other
services at Sri Pandi Muniswarar Temple Melamadai in Murai in turn
once in ten weeks by cycle as mentioned here under commencing from34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the mid night of every Thursday and ending with the mid night of next
Thursday.
2. that the plaintiff shall hold the above said murai for one week
commencing from the mid-night of every Thursday and ending with
mid-night of next Thursday; and
3. then in the same manner next week the 6th defendant for one
week; and
4. then in the same manner’ next week the 1st defendant for one
week; and
5. then in the same manner next week the 5th defendant for one
week; and
6. then in the same manner next week the defendants 6 to 10
(L.Rs. of deceased 2nd defendant) for one week; and
7. then in the same manner next week the 5th defendant for one
week; and
8. then in the same manner next week the 3rd defendant for one
week; and
9. then in the same manner next week the 5th defendant for one
week; and
10. Then in the same manner next week the 4 th defendant for one
week; and
11. then in the same manner next week the 5th defendant for one
week; and
12. thus the plaintiff again. to start the cycle as mentioned above
as per clause 2 of the compromise, for the weekly puja.
13. that the above said murai holders are entitled to get all
incomes including Hundai collections during their puja murai, subject
to the result in W. A. No. 487/69 on the file of High Court for Hundai35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
collections and the said murai holder incurs all expenses necessary for
temple in his particular week and he is also liable for common items of
expenditure, if any, in respect of the temple.
14. That the plaintiffs, defendants 1, 3,4,5 and 6 to 10 (L.Rsof
deceased 2nd defendant) are entitled to perfolin the Annual Chitrai
Festival services of puja for 10 days as mentioned hereunder
commencing from the Chitra Festivel of 1974.
15. That the 5th defendant shall hold the above said Chitra
Festival Annual puja for five years continuously commencing from the
Chitra Festival of 1974; and
16. then in the same manner next year 1979 the plaintiff for one
year; and
17. then in the same manner next year the 1st defendant for one
year; and
18, then in the same manner next year the defendants 6 to 10 the
L.Rs of deceased 2nd defendant for one year; and
19. Then in the same manner next year the ard defendant for one
year; and
20. then in the same manner, next year the 4th defendant for one
year and thus the 5th defendant again to state the cycle as mentioned
above as per clause 4 of the compromise, for 4 annual Chitra Festival
puja.
21. That the Murai holders, mentioned in clause 4 of the decree,
are entitled to get all incomes in their turns during the Annual Chitra
Festival Puja.
22. That at the time of weekly turn puja, if chitra festival annual
puja falls, the concerned weekly turn muraidar shall give up his turn, to
the muraidar of the Chitra Festival puja as per clause 4 of the decree36
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and the weekly muraidar,no has given up his turn,shall enjoy the weekly
turn of the muraidar who has conducted the chitra festival annual turn
when it occurs; and That the Chitra Festival Muraidar alone entitled to
get the rent from shops and the usufructous from the trees as per murai
mentioned in clause 4 of the decree; and Each parties do bear their own
costs.
14.1.Subsequently, Suit in O.S.No.570 of 1974 was filed against the
department for mandatory injunction and recovery of Hundi collection by the
trustees regarding the Hundi income stating that they have the beneficial interest in
the income of the temple. The suit was dismissed and the appeal suit also was
dismissed and Second Appeal was filed in Second Appeal No.1397 of 1978. Pending
the Second Appeal C.M.P.No.181 of 1982 had been filed for issuance of appropriate
direction enabling the trustees to have 2/3 of the receipt from Hundis “as their
remuneration for rendering service as poosari” and the said application was
dismissed on 02.04.1980 with direction to file application before the Deputy
Commissioner of the Department of HR & CE under Section 63 of the Act, 22 of
1959. In the said application it is stated that 6 hereditary trustees cum poosaris are
dividing their poosari turn into 10 shares and 5 shares each to Periyannan @
Mahamuni group and 5 shares each to the legal heirs of the Botha poosari, namely,
P.Sangan, P.Mariammal. P.Kodangi, P.Pandian, P.Veeramalai. In the said petition it
is stated that during the said pooja turn they got only very meagre plate collection
37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which is hardly sufficient for their livelihood. The Deputy Commissioner consideredthe income on that date namely, Rupees 1500 + 17450 and found that the said
amount includes the remuneration of the poosari and all the paditharam expenses,
therefore, the same was low comparing to the service rendered by them. After
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner
passed the following orders:
Therefore, the next question is what the quantum of the
share that may be fixed. The counsel for the petitioners contends
that there are ten share holders in the pooja right and that each
share got monthly an income of Rs.145/- only per month if 2/3 two
thirds of the income is fixed as remuneration. This arguments of
the counsel is reasonable, having regard to the various decisions
stressing the need to fix a definite remuneration out of the income
of the temple and also having regard to the probable increase
that may come to ensuing fasli. I am inclined to fix one half of the
income by way of Hundai (cash only) as the remuneration of the
poosaries instead of the monthly salary or time scale of pay,
subject to the conditions that the petitioner would be entitled, this
share no long as they do their service properly, faithfully and also
subject to the further condition that the expenses of paditharan
like coconuts for land for archakas etc., shall be set by the
personally.
14.2.The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was taken as suo motu
revision No.12 of 1992 and notice dated 17.11.1992 was issued from the office of
38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Commissioner of HR & CE and the same was challenged in W.P.No.13 of 1992and this Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and permitted the
trustees to agitate the matter before the Commissioner and the relevant paragraph is
as follows:
19. In fine, Commissioner is entitled to proceed with the
impugned suo motu proceedings (i) as and when interest of the public
relating to the affairs of the respective temple requires such action (ii)
the condition imposed in the order dated 08.05.1981 was violated and
(iii) any change of circumstances in the affairs of the temple requires
revisional authority to re-open the matter.
14.3.Pending the above proceedings, Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari died
bequeathing his right of hereditaryship and poosariship in favour of all his legal heirs
of his four wives and his second wife who had no children by Will dated 16.08.1985.
ghz;bKdP];tuh; Nfhtpy; rk;ge;jkhf ehd; mDgtpj;J
tUk; guk;giu bu];b & Grhhp ghj;jpaij tprakhf vd; MAs;
fhyj;jpw;F gpd; Nkw;nrhd;d vd; kf;fspilNa tPz; jhf;fk;
jfuhWfs; Vw;glhJ ,Uf;Fk; nghUl;L ,e;j cap;y; rhrdj;ij
vOjpitj;Js;Nsd;.
14.4.Thereafter, mismanagement continued and hence HR&CE Department
issued show cause notices to eight of the hereditary trustees of temple calling upon
them to cause why an action under Section 53 of the Act should not be taken against
them for serious irregularities and defects in the administration of the temple. One of
39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the trustees Saravana Pandian raised a point that the Government has no power to
take action under section 53 of the Act and thereafter Government issued a show
cause notice by framing the 12 charges by proceedings dated 02.03.2016 and also
passed the order of temporary suspension of hereditary trustees vide G.O.Ms.No.41
dated 02.03.2016 and also consequentially appointed a fit person for the temple in
question vide G.O.Ms.No.42, dated 02.03.2016. All the orders had been challenged
by the trustees before this Court and this Court has held that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case of the grave mismanagement of the temple money,
confirmed the order of the Government. Challenging the same, Appeal was filed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the
following orders in the C.A.No.803 of 2020 dated 29.01.2020?:
”Accordingly, Mr.Srinivasan, learned Additional Advocate General,
states that the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department shall issue a notice to the hereditary trustee(s) under the
provisions of the Act calling upon them to show cause why a fit person should
not be appointed after passing of the impugned judgement(s) and order(s) by
the High Court.
Order accordingly.
In the meanwhile, pending decision on the show cause notices, we
consider it appropriate that a Committee of the following persons shall manage
the temple and trust instead of the Executive Officer:
(1) Mrs.R.Lakshmi, W/o.Mr.Raja Poosari
(2) Mr.Ponnu Pandian, S/o.Mr.Sivaji Poosari
(3) Mr.Jayaveera Pandi, S/o.Mr.V.K.Pandian40
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(4) Mr.Rajesh Pandi, S/o.Mr.Ramesh Poosari
(5) Mr.Rishi Pandi, S/o.Mr.Pandiarajan
At this stage, Mr.Srinivasan, learned Additional Advocate General,
states that a scheme has already been framed under Section 64 of the Act.
However, it is obvious that the validity or otherwise of the scheme is not the
subject matter of these proceedings. We decline to comment on that at this
stage.
We further direct that the proceedings may be completed as soon as
possible preferably within a period not later than three months from today.
These appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Civil appeal Nos.804-805/2020 (@SLP © Nos.28484-28485/2017) and Civil
Appel Nos.811-812/2020 (@SLP (C).Nos.30698-30699/2018)
Leave granted.
In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No.803/2020
(@SLP(C) No.18818/2018) and connected matters, we consider it appropriate
to set aside the office Memo dated 16.03.2017 regarding the plate collection.
Order accordingly.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Contempt Petition (C).No.2094/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.808-809/2020
(@SLP(C) Nos.20533-20534/2018) and Contempt Petition (C) No.434/2019 in
Civil Appeal No.803/2020 (@SLP(C).No.18818/2018)
In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No.803/2020
(@SLP(C) No.18818/2018) and connected matters, the contempt petitions are
disposed of. ”
14.5.Thereafter, the order was passed by the Government by order justifying
termination. Therefore, batch of statutory appeals under the Act had been filed before
41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024 etc., and this Court deleted some
charges and remitted the matter to the Government to consider the case of the
trustees after providing sufficient opportunities and the same was pending.
Therefore, as on date as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the order of
this court in CMA(MD).No.1038 of 2024 order of removal hereditary trusteeship
was pending. As on date, there was no order of hereditary trusteeship in favour of the
any of the appellants and the private respondents in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025. Their
request to consider their case of hereditary trusteeship was negatived with direction
to perform the Poojas in their respective turn as per the compromise decree in
O.S.No.383 of 1973. Thus, it is absolutely clear that in none of the earlier
proceedings, their right of hereditary Poosariship had been addressed and
determined. At this point of time, the orders declining their request to continue the
right of Poosariships and further continuation of Poosari beyond the age of 60 years
is impugned as if it is in violation of the Rules 1964. Both issues never arose in the
earlier litigation and has arisen only now and hence this Court delves into the legal
issue of their entitlement to claim right of poosariship.
14.6.Firstly, Mrs.Anandhavalli, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in WA(MD).No.25 of 2025 and WA(MD).No.397 of 2025 would submit
that the authority has no jurisdiction to pass order of declining their entitlement of
hereditary Poosariship on the ground that they had made a claim only on the basis of
42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the order passed under Section 54(1) of Act 22/1959. At the outset, this Court rejects
the contention that the appellants are hereditary trustees entitled to the benefits under
Section 54, as the same is wholly misconceived. It is further evident that none of the
orders placed before this Court recognize any hereditary trusteeship under Section
54(1).
e.f.vz;.8287/2020/M1/ehs;21.12.2020 e.f.vz;.8676/99/M1/ehs; 4.4.2005 e.f.vz;.7655/2014/M1/ehs; 29.11.2014
jpUkjp.Mh;j;jp kw;Wk; jpUkjp.jdk; Mfpa ,UtUk; rl;lg;gphpT ghh;itapy; fhZk; fbjq;fspy; ghh;it 2-y; tug;ngw;w jpUkjp.khyjp f/ng.
54(i)d; fPo; jq;fis guk;giu mwq;fhtyuhf gjpT nra;a guk;giu eph;thf mwq;fhtyh; P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; g+rhhp mth;fsJ kDtpy;
kDtpy;> NfhhpAs;shh;fs;. jw;NghJ W.P.(MD) No.5711/2020y;> Nfl;Lf;nfhz;lgb> Nkw;gb nghUspy; fhZk; jpUf;NfhapYf;F jd;id rl;lg;gphpT
Mizah; V.gp.vz;.77/2018 ehs; 22.02.2020f;F ,ilf;fhy jil jpUf;Nfhtpypd; guk;giu 54(1)d; fPo; thhpRjhuuhf gjpT nra;a Ntz;bAk; kw;Wk;
gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; Nkw;fz;l ,uz;L egh;fshy; rl;lg;gphpT mwq;fhtyh; nghpazd; vd;w jd;Dila fzth; Nyl;.P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; g+rhhp
54(i)d; fPohd kDtpid ghprPypf;f ,ayhJ. kfhKdp g+rhhp vd;gth; 2.2.1986y; 2001 tUlk; kiwTf;F gpwF jhd; ghh;j;J tUtjhfTk;
fhykhfptpl;lijaLj;J Mdhy; g+i[Kiw gq;Fj; njhifapd; fhNrhiy jdJ
mtUf;Fhpa g+i[Kiw fzth; Nyl;.P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; rNfhjuh;
ghh;it-2y; fhZk; ,t;tYtyf Fwpg;Gfspy; kDjhuiu
ehl;fspy; mtuJ thhpRfshd P.M.n[fjP]; ghz;bad; ngahpy; toq;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ
tprhuizf;F M[uhf Nfhhp mwptpg;G mDg;gg;gl;L tprhuiz
1.jpU.gp.vk;.uh[h g+rhhp vd;Wk; mij jdJ ngahpy; fhNrhiy toq;FkhW
Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ. kDjhuh; jpUkjp.tp.Mh;j;jp kw;Wk;
2.jpU.gp.vdk;.nry;yg;ghz;bad; g Ntz;bAs;shh;.
vjph;kDjhuh;fs; MfpNahiu 21.12.2020 md;W ,iz Mizah;
+rhhp> 3.jpU.gp.vdk;.nghw;if
Kd;G Neub tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;ljpy;> ,e;J thhpR chpikr; mtuJ kDtpid ghprPypj;jjpy; rl;lg;gphpT
ghz;bad; g+rhhp>
rl;lg;gb Nyl;.tPughz;bapd; rl;lg;gbahd thhpRfs; 54(1) thhpR gjpT nra;a nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk;
4.jpU.gp.vk;.ghz;bauh[d;>
jpUkjp.Mh;j;jp> jpUkjp.jdk; mk;khs; kw;Wk; tPughz;bapd; kJiuf;fpis W.P.(MD) No. 4366 of 2009 cj;jutpd;gb
5.jpUkjp.gp.vk;.rNuh[h mk;kh
ikdh; Foe;ijfs; kl;LNk ,Ug;gjhy; VidNahh; jpU.Nyl;. thhpR gjpT nra;tjw;F ,ilf;fhy jil ,Ug;gjhy;
MfpNahh; g
tPughz;b g+i[ gyd;fis ngw ,ayhJ. thhpR gjpT nra;a ,ayhJ vd;w tpguk; njhptpj;Jf;
+i[ Kiwia ftdpj;J
nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.
tUtjhy;> g+i[ Kiwf;Fhpa
vdNt> nrd;id Mizah; ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
gq;Fj; njhiff;fhd
epYitapy; cs;s S.M.R.No.3/2018-D2 tof;fpw;F cl;gl;L gq;Fj;njhif toq;Ftjw;F
fhNrhiyapid mtuth;fs;
jpUkjp.tp.Mh;j;jp vd;gth; jdJ fzth; tPughz;bf;F gjpyhf g Vw;fdNt ,t;tYtyf e.f.vz;.8676/99/M1 ehs;
ghh;j;JtUk; g+i[ ehl;fSf;F
+i[ gyd;fis ngw;Wf;nfhs;sTk; g 04.04.2005 cj;juT %yk; jpU. P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad;
mtuth;fSf;F jdpj;jdpNa
+i[ gyd;fspy; ,Ue;J jpUkjp jdk; mk;khSf;F &.50>000/- gq;Fj; njhif fhNrhiy ngw;W te;Js;shh;. mNj
toq;Fk;gb eph;thf guk;giu
toq;fTk; Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; guk;giu mwq;fhtyh;fSf;F Nghy; mtuJ kiwTf;F gpd; g+i[ Kiw ghh;j;J tUk;
mwq;fhtyUf;F
cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. jpUkjpP.khyjp mth;fSf;F g+i[Kiwf;Fhpa gq;Fj;
cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
njhiff;fhd fhNrhiyapid mth; ghh;j;J tUk; g+i[
ehl;fSf;F mtUf;F jdpNa toq;Fk;gb guk;giu
mwq;fhtyh; jpU.rpth[p g+rhhpf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
14.7.The said orders merely grant limited permission in respect of performing
Poosari duties and receiving hundi collection and do not confer or acknowledge any
status of hereditary trusteeship. Rights cannot be conjured out of obscurity, nor can
they rest upon undocumented assertions. Despite this position, the appellants have
43
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
persisted in advancing their claim as if they got order under section 54(1) of Act,
which is impermissible in law. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to accept the
pleadings or assertions of the appellants seeking recognition as hereditary trustees or
as holders of any hereditary Poosari rights, as no such status has ever been conferred
or recognized by the competent authority. Moreover, in the background of rival
claims, the competent authority lacks jurisdiction to pass any order under Section
54(1). Hence, adjudication of the department by poking its nose in the rival claim of
hereditary trusteeship during the past period is against true purport of Section 54(1)
(corresponding Section 57(b) of 1951 Act).The authority without considering their
lack of jurisdiction to interfere with the rival claim of trusteeship entertained the
application and pass order of collecting Hundi share to a particular turn who
performed poojas beyond the scope of Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and
paved way for number of litigations. It is well settled principle under the Section
54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 (Corresponding Section 57(b) of the Act 1951) the
authority has no jurisdiction to pass order by entertaining the disputed claim of
trusteeship and the relevant precedents are as follows:
14.7.1.In the case of A.Krishnaswami Raju v. Krishna Raja, reported in 1966
SCC OnLine Mad 91
The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57(b) is
confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a
hereditary trustee. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner can only44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decide as to the status of the office of the trusteeship, namely, whether it is
hereditary. He is not competent to go into the further question as to which
of the competing claimants is a hereditary trustee or whether both are
joint hereditary trustees. That is a matter not covered by Section 57 of the
Act and has to be decided only by a separate suit.
14.8.Therefore as on date without order under section Section 54(1) of the
Act, 22 of 1959, they claimed shelter under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 to
defend impugned orders where their right of hereditary poosariship was declined.
14.9.Further, the claim of legal heirs of the Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari
on the basis of the Will is not at all maintainable under the said Act, 22 of 1959. In
this aspect, it is relevant to note the following provision of the Act 1927, 1951 and
1959:
1927 1951 1959
‘Hereditary trustee’ means the ‘Hereditary trustee’ means the ‘Hereditary trustee’ means the
trustee of a religious trustee of a religious trustee of a religious institution,
endowment, succession to endowment, succession to succession to whose office
whose office devolves by whose office devolves by devolves by hereditary right or
hereditary right or by hereditary right or is otherwise is regulated by usage or is
nomination by the trustee for regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the
the time being, or is otherwise specially provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme
regulated by usage or is founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.
specially provided for by the of succession is in force.
founder, so long as such scheme
of succession is in force.
14.10.From the reading of the above provisions, there is no right of
45
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nomination by the hereditary trustee. Therefore, on the basis of the Will of the
Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari’s legal heirs have no legal right to claim
trusteeship. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the similar circumstances, in the case of
D. Srinivasan v. Commr., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 548 has held as follows:
9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the
present appellant trustee has been nominated by the trustees for the
time being and could be treated as “hereditary trustee” and
whether the three original plaintiffs could also have been treated as
“hereditary trustees” from the time when OA No. 165 of 1966 was
filed by the three persons in 1966 before the Deputy Commissioner.
10. For a proper appreciation of the above issue, it is necessary to
resort to the definition of “excepted temple” in sub-section (5) of
Section 9 of the 1927 Act and also to the definition of “hereditary
trustee” in sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act. Sub-section
(5) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act reads as follows:
“ ‘Excepted temple’ means:
(a) a temple which before 1801 was, and since 1963 has
continued to be, under the sole management of a trustee whose
nomination did not vest in, nor was exercised by, the Government
nor was subject to the confirmation of the Government or of any
public officer, or
(b) a temple founded since 1842, the right of succession to
the office of trustee whereof is hereditary or specially provided for
by the founder.”
Sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act reads as follows:
“ ‘Hereditary trustee’ means the trustee of a religious endowment,
succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or by
nomination by the trustee for the time being, or is otherwise
regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the founder, so
long as such scheme of succession is in force.
11. From the abovesaid definition, it will be noticed that
under sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, the definition of
“hereditary trustee” included a person who was nominated by the
trustees, for the time being in office.
13. Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1951 Act repealed the
provisions of the 1927 Act. Section 5 of the 1951 Act is however to
be read in conjunction with Section 103 of the said Act. We are46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only concerned with clauses (a) and (b) of Section 103 of the 1951
Act, which read as follows:
“(a) all rules made, notifications or certificates issued,
orders passed, decisions made, proceedings or action taken,
schemes settled and things done by the Government, the Board or
its President or by an Assistant Commissioner under the said Act,
shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent, with this Act, be deemed
to have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done by the
appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of this
Act and shall, subject to the provisions of clause (b) must have
effect accordingly:
Explanation.—Certificates issued by the Board under Section
78 of the said Act shall be deemed to have been validly issued
under that section, notwithstanding that the certificates were issued
before the making of rules prescribing the manner of their issue.
(b) If the Government are satisfied that any such rule,
notification, certificate, order, decision, proceeding, action, scheme
or thing, although not inconsistent with this Act would not have
been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done, or would not
have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done in the form
adopted, if this Act had been in force at the time, they shall have
power, by order made at any time within one year from the
commencement of this Act, to cancel or to modify in such manner
as may be specified in the order, the said rule, notification,
certificate, order, decision, proceeding, action, scheme or thing,
and thereupon, the same shall stand cancelled or modified as
directed in the said order, with effect from the date on which it was
made or from such later date as may be specified therein:
Provided that before making any such order, the Government
shall publish in the Fort St. George Gazette a notice of their
intention to do so, fix a period which shall not be less than two
months from the date of the publication of the notice for the
persons affected by the order to show cause against the making
thereof and consider their representations, if any;”
14. A reading of Sections 5 and 103 of the 1951 Act would
show that the 1927 Act was repealed, but the repeal was subject to
certain conditions as stated in Section 103 of the 1951 Act. We
shall come back to the effect of Section 103 on the 1927 Act a little
later
20. So far as the other plaintiffs, namely D. Adiseshayya and
Y.R. Natarajan are concerned, the question would be whether they47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
could be called “hereditary trustees” under sub-section (11) of
Section 6 of the 1959 Act. That was the Act in force in 1972. The
further question would be whether the appellant before us, who is
D. Srinivasan and who was a person who was nominated
subsequently by the remaining trustees, and which event took place
after 1951, could be called “hereditary trustee”.
21. After the commencement of the 1951 Act, the definition of
“hereditary trustee” contained in sub-section (9) of Section 6 of
that Act did not recognise a person who was nominated by other
trustees, as “hereditary trustees”. Thus, so far as those trustees
nominated by the said five persons after the 1951 Act are
concerned, they being persons nominated by the trustees who were
nominated by Venkatarangaiah’s nominees, in our view, would not
be “hereditary trustees” under Section 6(9) of the 1951 Act. It is
true that the Board of Trustees created by Venkatarangaiah could
be treated as a fluctuating body from time to time and any rights
vested in that body to nominate “hereditary trustees” under sub-
section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, would remain unless taken
away by the 1951 Act. The question is whether after the 1927 Act
was repealed by the 1951 Act, any rights created under the 1927
Act in the Board of Trustees could continue in force and this
question would depend upon the provisions of Section 103 of the
1951 Act.
23. It is true that rights vested in any person or authority
under a repealed statute are not to be deemed to be interfered with
by the repealing statute, unless there is any provision in the
repealing statute which expressly or by necessary implication
interferes with the rights accrued to any persons or body under a
repealed statute of 1927. But in our view, the language contained
in clause (a) of Section 103 of the 1951 Act evinces a clear
intention to depart from the scheme of the 1927 Act and no longer
to call the persons nominated by the Board of “hereditary
trustees”, after 1951 as “hereditary trustees”. In other words, if
any trustees are nominated subsequent to the commencement of the
1951 Act, by the Board of hereditary trustees (who came into office
pursuant to the will of Venkatarangaiah or their nominees) then
those persons would not be governed by the definition of sub-
section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, but will be governed by
Section 6(9) of the 1951 Act. Such persons cannot be described as
“hereditary trustees” inasmuch as by altering the definition of
“hereditary trustees”, the 1951 Act has chosen to interfere with an
existing right of the Board to nominate fresh trustees as
48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“hereditary trustees”.24. We, therefore, hold that if any trustee has
been nominated subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act
by the Board of Trustees who were in office prior to the 1951 Act
or by their nominees then such persons could not be called
“hereditary trustees” within the meaning of sub-section (6) of
Section 9 of the 1951 Act. Similarly, if the persons who were
themselves not hereditary trustees after the 1951 Act, either by
themselves or along with other hereditary trustees after 1951,
nominated trustees, then such trustees would not be hereditary
trustees. The position is no different after the 1959 Act
25. Therefore, the other two plaintiffs in the suit, namely, D.
Adiseshayya and Y.R. Natarajan and the present appellant, D.
Srinivasan before us being persons who were nominated as trustees
subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act, cannot be
described as “hereditary trustees”, for the purposes of the 1951
Act or the 1959 Act.26. This does not, however, mean that the right
conferred on the Board of Trustees, whenever a vacancy occurs in
the five places created by Venkatarangaiah, is done away with
altogether by the 1951 Act or by the post-1951 Acts. It will be open
to the nominated five trustees in office, from time to time to
nominate fresh trustees whenever there is any vacancy in these five
offices of trustees. Such persons can be trustees but cannot be
called “hereditary trustees”. They will have to be described as
“non-hereditary trustees”. What their rights are will necessarily
have to be governed by the provisions of the statute. We need not
go into the question as to their rights. Suffice to say that they are
not “hereditary trustees”.
14.11.In the case of D.Srinivasan v. Commr. [(2000) 3 SCC 548] followed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of from Commr., H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) v.
Vedantha Sthapna Sabha, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 497, the operative portion of
the judgment is as follows:
14. A bare reading of the definition of “hereditary trustee”
brings into focus three important aspects i.e. first, a trustee of a49
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
religious institution the succession to which is devolved by
hereditary right; the second category is that succession can be
regulated by usage and the third category is where succession
relating to the office of trustee is specifically provided for by the
founder and that too so long as the scheme of such succession is in
force. In contrast to the criteria engrafted in Section 6(22), the
definition in Section 6(11) lays special and specific emphasis on the
succession to the office of trustee of a religious institution
devolving by any one of the three methods or manner envisaged
therein. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the statutory
authorities specially constituted under the Act have held the temple
to be for all the worshipping Hindu public and not confined to the
members of the Sabha only having regard to the manner in which
funds were collected and the manner in which the public invitations
and declarations have been made and day-to-day administration of
the temple is being carried on from inception. Though there has
been an application for declaration of the office of trustee of the
religious institution to be a hereditary one, no application under
Section 63(a) for a declaration as to whether the temple in question
is a religious institution used as a place of public religious worship
and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the
Hindu community or section thereof was filed. Even after specific
findings by the statutory authorities as to the character of the
institution conspicuous omission in this regard disentitled the
respondent Sabha to incidentally or vaguely project that it is for
the members of the Sabha only. Once it is a religious institution
within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of the Act have full
force and effect and the claim of the nature, unless substantiated as
provided for under the statute cannot be countenanced on certain
assertions made which were besides such statutory provisions.14.12.Therefore, in all earlier proceedings, above legal principles
inadvertently escaped from the consideration of this Court and therefore, the claim of
Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari’s legal heirs on the basis of the Will is not legally
sustainable.
50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.Discussion on the claim of right of hereditary poosariship:
In consequences of the above situation that no legal order of hereditary
trusteeship is in favour of none of the appellants and private respondents under
section 54 of act 22 of 1959, in the impugned orders before writ court, in exercise of
suo motu jurisdiction as provisions of Act, passed orders impleading all concerned
parties and holding that none of them are entitled to claim hereditary Poosari rights.
Consequential directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in
accordance with the said findings. Against such orders, multiple revision petitions
were preferred before the Commissioner, and all such matters were clubbed together
and disposed of by a common order. The said common order also came to be
challenged by way of separate writ petitions.
15.1. The appellants, along with certain other individuals connected with
the temple who were impleaded as respondents, raised claims concerning the
alleged continuation of hereditary poosari rights and the abolition of hereditary
poosari right. They contended that they were not servants of the HR&CE Department
but were hereditary office holders entitled to continue in office without the
limitations applicable to temple servants.
15.2.This Court impleaded all the concerned persons and heard the elaborate
51
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. All counsel, in
one voice, submitted that the temple is essentially a village temple established
around the year 1800 and that its administration was historically vested with
members of a particular family.
15.3.The principal issue arising in the present batch of writ appeals is whether
the appellants possess a continuing hereditary right to function as poosaris and can
receive hundi collection.
15.4.The Department, invoked Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to dispute their claim of
receipt of hundi collection perpetually as hereditary poosariship. The authorities
have concurrently held that neither party is entitled to claim hereditary poosari rights,
in view of the amendment to Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959, which abolished hereditary succession. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellants would submit that the order was passed under Section
54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and therefore, Section 55 of the Act, has no application.
15.5.This Court is unable to accept the said argument for the simple reason
that there was no document produced to prove that they are appointed under Section
52
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959. In fact, in this case, the appellants filed the application
to appoint them as a hereditary trustees in the place of their representative.
Immediately, rival claim were made and the authorities as a temporary solution had
recognized only their right of receiving the hundi collection and other plate
collection and sharing among themselves ie, they were allowed only to share the
hundi collection and the plate collection and at no point of time, they were allowed
to act as hereditary trustees. But, they were allowed to perform the poojas in the
place of their respective representatives after their death. Therefore, the argument of
the learned counsel that they are as hereditary trustees but not appointed under
Section 54(1) of the Act, is misconceived. As the records shows, they were allowed
only to receive the shares of plate collection and hundi collection and allowed to
perform poojas. To the case in hand, Section 55 of the Act, has application. For easy
reference, Section 55 of the Act is extracted below:-
No person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy
referred to in sun-section (1) merely on the ground that he is next in
the line of succession to the last holder of the office.15.6.The constitutional validity of the above provision was tested before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the
case of Seshammal vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1972 (2) SCC 11 upheld the
same. Even as per the pleadings of the appellants, the temple is not governed by
53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Agama and no convincing material has been placed before this Court to demonstratethat the temple is governed by a specific Agama mandating hereditary priesthood. In
view of the above discussion, the order of the authority that they are not entitled for
hereditary poosariship as per Section 55 of the Act, 22 of 1959 is valid.
15.7.In this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellants relied the following
precedents and argued that the temple is a village temple and hereditary poosariship
and trusteeship vested with the family and the same was legally recognized in the
said precedents and therefore they requested to follow the said precedents in this
case also.
(i)in the case of Babugurukkal v. The Commissioner for HR& EC reported
in 1964 2 MLJ 384 and
(ii)in the case of Venkataraman vs. Thangappa Gounder reported in AIR
1972 Madras 119 (DB)
15.8. From the above reading of the said precedents, it is not clear whether the
said temples are notified public temples or not? But the present temple in question is
notified public temple. The said temples are small village temple without any huge
hundi and plate collection. The said decisions were delivered before the amended
provision of Section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and also there was no discussion about
the said provision. This Court can easily distinguish the said precedents on facts and
54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
law. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel onthe basis of the said precedents.
16.Discussion on application of Rule (5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu
Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964 :
The other reasoning of the authority that the persons who had crossed sixty
years of age are not entitled to continue the poosariship as per the Rule 5 of Rule
1964 is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the said
Rule has no application to the temple. All the learned Counsels appearing for the
Appellants and the private respondents WA(MD).No.25 of 2025 would submit that
the said Rule has no application in view of the Rule 2020 brought by the
Government of Tamil Nadu. This Court perused the two Rules. It is true that Rule
2020 brought in supersession of the 1964 Rules. But, in this rules also the age for
superannuation is fixed only as 60 years. Apart from that the said Rule was brought
by exercising power under the Act 22/1959. Any action taken prior to the
commencement of the Rule 2020 under the old Act is saved by the Saving clause
provided under the Act. Only legal impediment is that any conflict between the
Rule 2020 and 1964, the Rule 2020 prevails. This Court finds no conflict relating to
the age limit. That apart, furthermore, the impugned orders were passed under Rules,
1964 before the commencement of Rule 2020.
55
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.1.The temple is notified public temple. Religious Institution as per the
definition of the Act, 22 of 1959 means a temple. For better appreciation, this Court
extracts Section 2(18) of the Act, 22 of 1959 hereunder:
1[(18) “Religious institution” means a math, temple or specific
endowment and includes,: —
(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or
(ii) any other institution established or maintained for a
religious purpose. Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause-
(1) “samadhi” means a place where the mortal remains of a
guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious
worship;
(2) “brindhavan” means a place established or maintained in
memory of a guru, sadhu or saint and used as a place of public
religious worship, but does not include the samadhi;)16.2.Therefore, in view of the Rule 2020, there is further clarity relating to two
aspects namely in the case of notified, non-Agamic temples, the appointment of
Poosaris, retirement of Poosari, taking action against the Poosari is a purely a secular
and the State Authorities have statutory powers to appoint Poosari, and can
superannuate the Poosaris beyond 60 years. For that the HR&CE Department is
acting as an arm of the State to pass the impugned orders. More particularly, the Writ
Court on appreciation of records found that there was no evidence to establish the
56
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
customs or any other usage to prove their entitlement of Poosariship in the line of thesuccession. Therefore, the Counsel’s submission that in view of the Rule 2020, the
impugned order passed under the existing 1964 Rules is not valid cannot be
accepted.
16.3. The learned Counsels appearing for the appellants and the private
respondents made strong reliance on the proceedings of the department dated
11.10.1981 to substantiate their claim of receipt of Hundi and plate collection for
performing poosariship on the basis of the following material portion of the order:
I am inclined to fix one half of the income by way of Hundai
(cash only) as the remuneration of the poosaries instead of the
monthly salary or time scale of pay, subject to the conditions that the
petitioner would be entitled, this share no long as they do their service
properly, faithfully and also subject to the further condition that the
expenses of paditharan like coconuts for land for archakas etc., shall
be set by the personally.
16.4.From above said order, it is clear that they are treated as servants only.
Therefore, there is no question of absence of the appointment under the Act as a
Poosari to claim Poojariship till life and perpetual. When they are recognized and
determined as a temple servant/Poosari, they are subject to the service conditions
applicable to temple servants, including the age of superannuation, which is fixed as
57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sixty years and that they cannot continue in office beyond that age, though they are
receiving the Hundi collection and plate collection as poosari and therefore, for that
reason, their case that the service Rules not applicable to them cannot be accepted.
Further, when similar contention raised before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court in W.A.No.424 of 1999 (Dr.S.Viswanatha Sivachariyar vs.
Spl.Commissioner, HR and CE case) the Division Bench declined to accept the said
contention.
16.5.The contention of the petitioners that “Poosariship” and “hereditary
trusteeship” are interchangeable or co-extensive requires careful scrutiny. Even
assuming, arguendo, that there is an overlap in the functional roles, the
disqualification arising out of proven mismanagement in the administration of
temple affairs cannot be ignored. A person who has been found unfit to manage the
affairs of the temple cannot, by merely altering the nomenclature of the office claim,
seek to re-enter the same institutional framework in another capacity.
16.6.In a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, particularly in light of the abolition of hereditary
rights under the amended Section 55, the emphasis is on regulated administration,
accountability, and integrity in the discharge of religious services. The statutory
scheme does not contemplate permitting individuals, who have been found guilty of
58
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mismanagement or maladministration, to continue in positions of controlling the
temple affairs or its revenues, whether as trustees or as Poosaris, especially when
such roles are intertwined with financial or administrative responsibilities.
16.7.Therefore, the claim of the petitioners, seeking recognition or
continuation as Poosaris notwithstanding the adverse findings of mismanagement, is
legally un-sustainable. The attempt to distinguish between capacities, while the
underlying conduct remains the same, cannot be accepted. In effect, such a claim
amounts to an impermissible circumvention of the consequences flowing from duly
established findings of misconduct.
16.8.Accordingly, on a harmonious and purposive construction of the statutory
provisions, the petitioners are dis-entitled from asserting any right to continue either
as trustees or as Poosaris.
16.9.The authorities also recorded findings of persistent mismanagement in the
administration of the temple. It was alleged that substantial amounts were being
collected through plate collections and hundi offerings—stated to exceed one crore
rupees annually—and that disputes among the rival claimants were largely centred
on the division of these collections. The records indicate that the parties frequently
resorted to litigation whenever disputes arose and, after reaching private settlements
59
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
among themselves, flagged an issue against department for distribution of hundi and
plate collections. In these circumstances, the competent authority examined the
matter and concluded that the appellants, being temple servants, cannot continue in
service beyond the age of sixty years. the person who had crossed 60 years are not
entitled to continue in view of the above stated Rule 1964 is correct. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has, on several occasions, drawn a clear distinction between religious
practices and secular activities associated with religion. Insofar as matters relating to
essential religious practices are concerned, a person may challenge State’s action on
the ground of interference with such religious practice. However, where the State or
statutory authorities regulate secular activities connected with the administration of a
temple, such regulation cannot be questioned except on grounds available under the
relevant statutory framework.
16.10.In the present case, the Department has duly considered the statutory
provisions and passed the impugned order declining to recognize the petitioners as
hereditary pooja recipients. In the earlier proceedings, there was no determination of
either the claim of hereditary trusteeship or hereditary poosariship and termination
of trusteeship on the ground of grave mismanagement by the authority was set aside
by SC only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and further, in
all the cases reference was made only in the context of the earlier litigations. The
60
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present claim seeking recognition of hereditary pooja rights cannot therefore be
entertained.
16.11.Once the claim of hereditary trusteeship itself is found to be not
maintainable, the consequential claim of hereditary pooja recipient cannot survive.
The authorities, acting within their statutory powers in a secular administrative
capacity, have passed the impugned order in view of the maladministration and
considering the allegations relating to siphoning off Hundi collections belonging to
the temple by appellants and other private respondents.
16.12.This Court finds that the authorities have rightly exercised their
jurisdiction and passed the impugned order after considering all relevant aspects. The
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, in village temples, the
offices of poosari, chief priest, and trusteeship are vested in the same person based
on certain precedents cannot be accepted in the present case. Those precedents are
not applicable, since the temple in question is a notified public temple and not a
private village temple. Further, the temple has been duly notified by the Government,
and therefore the State authorities are empowered to regulate its administration and
to pass appropriate orders, either suo motu or on petitions submitted before them, in
order to safeguard the temple and prevent misappropriation or siphoning off temple
fund.
61
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16.13.Accordingly, the contention of the appellants that the abolition of
hereditary priesthood is inapplicable to them cannot be accepted. The orders of the
authorities holding that the appellants are temple servants and subject to the statutory
age of superannuation is therefore liable to be sustained. This Court finds no
infirmity in the impugned orders confirmed by the writ Court where it has been held
that the legal heirs of the Bodha poosari and Mahamuni poosari are not entitled to
hereditary poosariship in view of Section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and prohibited
from claiming a right of poosariship as a hereditary and also the person crossed the
age of 60 years are not entitled as per the Rule 5 of the Rules 1964. So far as
Mahamuni poosari’s legal heirs on the basis of the Will dated 17.08.1985 is not
legally maintainable as per Section 2(17) of Act 22 of 1959 as a hereditary trustee. In
view of the above findings, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the orders
passed by the Commissioner and other authorities, which were impugned in the writ
petitions and were also upheld by the learned Single Judge. Both the authorities and
the learned Single Judge have examined the statutory provisions in detail and have
categorically held that the abolition of hereditary priesthood applies to the temple in
question .This Court finds no reason to interfere with those findings.
17.Discussion on the claim of Seethalakshmi and Maruthupandi:
The said Pandian Poosari died on 12.11.2003. Thereafter, the appellant,
62
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Seethalakshmi, claiming to be the wife of the deceased Pandian poosari, submittedan application dated 28.11.2003 seeking (i) recognition as his legal heir, (ii)
appointment as hereditary trustee in his place, and (iii) permission to continue as
poosari in the temple. The competent authority, by order dated 04.12.2003, without
adjudicating upon the issue of hereditary trusteeship or the entitlement as hereditary
poosari, merely permitted Seethalakshmi to perform the pooja in the turn of the
deceased Pandian poosari. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:
nghUspy; fhZk; jpUf;Nfhapypy; guk;giu mwq;fhtyh;fspd; xUtuhd
jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhp 12.11.2003 md;W fhykhdjhy; Vw;gl;l fhypaplj;jpy; mtuJ
kidtpahd jk;ik guk;giu mwq;fhtyuhf gjpT nra;J cj;jutpLkhW ghh;itapy;
fhZk; Fwpg;gpy; %yk; jpUkjp.gp.rPjhnyl;Rkp tpz;zg;gpj;Js;shh;. fhyQ;nrd;w
guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhpapd; kidtp vd;gjw;fhd thhpR
rhd;wpid kDjhuh; rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy. vdNt> chpa thhpRr;rhd;wpjOld;
tpz;zg;gpf;FkhW jpUkjp.gp.rPjhnyl;Rkpf;F mwpTiufs; toq;fg;gLfpwJ.
fhyQ;nrd;w guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhpapd; g+rhhp Kiwia
vjph;tUk; tuj;jpw;F kl;Lk; ghh;j;Jtu kDjhuUf;F mDkjp toq;;fg;gLfpwJ.
gq;Fj;njhiff;F jdpahf tpz;zg;gpj;J cj;juT ngw;Wnfhs;SkhWk;
njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ
17.1.The said order was challenged by the minor Marudhupandi in A.P. No.19
of 2003, contending that he was the adopted son of the deceased Pandian poosari
63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and, therefore, entitled to succeed to the position. He also disputed the marital statusof Seethalakshmi. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated
06.05.2004. Aggrieved thereby, Marudhupandi filed W.P. No.1428 of 2004 before
this Court. This Court, by interim arrangement, permitted Seethalakshmi to perform
the poojas and directed both parties to share the pooja receipts without dispute.
Challenging the said order, Seethalakshmi filed W.A.No.1590 of 2011, and
Marudhupandi filed W.A. No.1995 of 2011. The writ appeal filed by Seethalakshmi
was allowed, and the claim of Marudhupandi was rejected, granting liberty to him to
approach the competent civil court for declaration of his status as the adopted son of
the deceased Pandian poojari. Pursuant thereto, Marudhupandi instituted O.S.No.92
of 2013 before the Subordinate Court, Melur, seeking declaration of his status as
adopted son and consequential rights over hereditary trusteeship and pooja receipts.
Though the suit was decreed, the same was carried in appeal by Seethalakshmi in
A.S.No.62 of 2019, which came to be allowed. The matter is stated to be pending
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein notice has been ordered, but no interim
stay has been granted.
17.2.In the above backdrop, a serious dispute persists between Seethalakshmi
and Marudupandi, each making rival allegations. Marudupandi contends that
Seethalakshmi’s marital status is doubtful, alleging that she was involved in
proceedings under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and that no valid marriage
64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was performed. On the other hand, Seethalakshmi disputes the claim of adoption,
contending that the same has not been legally established, a position which also finds
support in the appellate court’s findings. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the claim of
Marudhupandi as an adopted son remains sub judice and hence, he is not entitled to
make any claim. Since the department by applying Rule 5 of 1964 Rules passed the
order prohibiting Seethalakshmi to continue as poosari beyond the age of
superannuation, namely, 60 years, she is also not entitled to make any claim.
17.3.In view of the foregoing reasons, both parties are embroiled in substantial
factual and legal disputes, accompanied by serious allegations against each other. In
such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to recognise or confer rights upon
either party at this stage, independent of the findings already rendered by the
competent authorities.
17.4.Furthermore, the authorities have concurrently held that neither party is
entitled to claim hereditary poosari rights, in view of the amendment to Section 55 of
the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which abolishes
hereditary succession. Additionally, insofar as Seethalakshmi is concerned, she has
admittedly attained the age of superannuation as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu
Religious Servants Rules, 1964, thereby dis-entitling her from continuing in service.
65
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17.5.It is, however, open to Marudupandi to work out his remedies before the
competent authorities, subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the event his claim of adoption is ultimately upheld, it
would be open to him to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, including
consideration of any claim relating to poosari service or trusteeship, strictly in
conformity with the statutory framework.
18.Discussion on the claim of Dhanam, Veerapandi and Pandeeswari:
Dhanam is the Fifth Wife of Mahamuni poosari. She has two sons, namely,
Pandiarajan and Veerapandi and one daughter, namely, Pandeeswari. Veerapandi
submitted a representation dated 18.09.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, seeking recognition and
grant of share in the poosari receipts. By order dated 28.09.2014, the Deputy
Commissioner declined to recognise Veerapandi as a legal heir of Mahamuni Poosari
through Dhanam. Nevertheless, the authority proceeded to hold that Veerapandi was
entitled to a share and issued consequential directions to the trustee, Shivaji Poosari,
to disburse such share. The said order was subsequently taken up as suo motu
revision in S.M.R. No. 3 of 2018. In the course of the said proceedings, a categorical
finding was rendered that Veerapandi is not entitled to any share. During the
pendency of the proceedings, Veerapandi died, and Dhanam (described as Aarthi)
was impleaded as her legal heir. Likewise, upon the death of Pandiarajan, his legal
66
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
heirs, namely Pandiswari and another Pandiarajan, were also brought on record. Allother necessary legal heirs were duly impleaded in the proceedings. Ultimately, by
order dated 19.01.2023 passed in S.M.R.No.3 of 2018, the authority declined the
claims of all parties and held that none of them are entitled to any poosari receipts,
thereby effectively nullifying the earlier order dated 28.09.2014. The said order was
challenged before this Court by way of writ proceedings, which came to be
dismissed by the impugned judgment. In such circumstances, the present claim made
by the legal heirs of Pandiarajan and Veerapandi, seeking entitlement to poosari
receipts on the basis of hereditary succession, is legally untenable. The impugned
orders passed by the authorities are in consonance with the amended provisions of
Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which
abolished hereditary rights in such offices. Further, it is pertinent to note that the
claim of Veerapandi was never recognized at any point of time prior to the filing of
the representation in the year 2014. In the absence of any established or recognized
right, no enforceable claim can be sustained.
19.Discussion on the claim of Valli:
19.1.Valli wife of Sangan poosari after sending a consent letter dated
17.03.1997 to record “Karthik (allegedly adopted son)” as a hereditary trustee-cum-
poosari under the branch of Sangan poosari, had obtained the order on 06.01.2014 in
her favour from the department to perform the poojas turn of Sangan poosari but it
67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was rejected by the writ Court on the ground that she made a belated claim and there
is no permanent vacancy and Karthik was already appointed as a hereditary trustee
and the similar belated claim made by the other branch namely, A.Pandiammal
against P.Sivaji poosari was declined by the Division Bench in the case of
A.Pandiammal V. P.Sivaji poosari reported in 2012 SCC Online Mad 2424 and the
same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of Superme Court and the
writ Court considering the same, dismissed her claim by setting aside the order of the
department dated 06.01.2014 passed in favour of Valli. So far as Karthik is
concerned, he was not only suspended on the ground of the misappropriation and
also involved in the assault upon the sister, namely, Sumathi, inside the temple
premises and also caused injuries to the HR and CE departmental officials also.
Therefore, both Karthik and Valli are not entitled to get any relief.
20.Discussion on the question of the excepted temple and consequential
direction of the writ Court to the authority to take action
In the year 1935, as stated above, the department passed the order and declared
that the temple is exempted one as per the provision of the Act –1927. Now, there is
no question of exemption under the New Act. The said question was elaborately
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Srinivasan v.Commr.
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 548] and the relevant paragraph is as follows:
68
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. For a proper appreciation of the above issue, it is necessary to
resort to the definition of “excepted temple” in sub-section (5) of Section 9
of the 1927 Act and also to the definition of “hereditary trustee” in sub-
section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the
1927 Act reads as follows:
“ ‘Excepted temple’ means:
(a) a temple which before 1801 was, and since 1863 has continued
to be, under the sole management of a trustee whose nomination
did not vest in, nor was exercised by, the Government nor was
subject to the confirmation of the Government or of any public
officer, or
(b) a temple founded since 1842, the right of succession to the
office of trustee whereof is hereditary or specially provided for by
the founder.”
12.The 1951 Act did not recognise the plea of “excepted
temple”, which was a particular class of temple, for which
provision was made only under the 1927 Act.
20.1.Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
authority has no power in the case of excepted temple as per the order passed in the
year 1935 by the Board deserves to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the contentions advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants, in view of the principles governing temple
administration under statue.
21.Recalibration in Light of Changed Circumstances:
The central issue is whether the poosaris’ entitlement to 50% of the hundial
69
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
collection, as granted in O.A.No.77 of 1980, can be sustained in the light of vastlychanged financial and standard of living circumstances or for performing poojas
with devotion and doing secular duty with self conscience and self discipline and
discharging function for the welfare of temple.
21.1. It is relevant to note that At the time when the application was filed in
O.A.No.77 of 1980 under section 63 of Act 26 of 1959, the temple was
impoverished, its annual income was barely Rs.25,000/- and the plate collection
meagre i.e., its income was meagre and offerings sparse and insufficient even for the
livelihood of the poosaris and there fore grant of 50% of the hundial collection to
the poosaris was intended as a remuneration to the poosari in lieu of a regular salary
or time-scale pay so as to enable them to meet their basic livelihood expenses and
maintain a reasonable level of dignity while discharging their religious duties , and
was subject to the condition that they should faithfully perform the temple services
and personally bear certain expenses relating to pooja materials. The grant of 50% of
the hundial collection to poosaris was not a privilege but a measure of necessity,
intended to serve as a substitute for regular salary or time-scale pay. The allocation
was conditioned upon faithful performance of temple services and personal
responsibility for certain expenses related to pooja materials.
21.2.After the above order in the year, time has transformed the terrain and
has wrought a remarkable transformation and an unrelenting sculptor of
70
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumstances. Today, the temple pulses with the devotion of nearly a very largenumber of devotees every week. As found by the authorities and as judicially noticed
by this Court, the temple is situated within about two kilometres from this Court and
draws a very large number of devotees, particularly on Fridays and Tuesdays and
during weekends. The materials placed before this Court, including the findings
recorded by the authorities as well as the courts below, reveal that the temple
presently attracts a very large number of devotees and generates substantial income
and the annual plate collection alone exceeds Rs.1 crore and hundle collection of
more than 4 crores and Devotees themselves contribute the majority of pooja
materials, reducing the personal financial burden of the poosaris as most of the pooja
materials and offerings are contributed directly by the devotees for paditharam and
the institution has become financially robust .
21.3.In fact, the records disclose that the annual plate collection alone exceeds
Rs.1 crore, and on certain occasions the plate collection even exceeds the hundi
collection. The learned Judge also extracted the income during the period of fit
person.
21.4.The details of the approximate income during the period of fit person as
extracted by the Writ Court in paragraph No.39 is as follows:
39.Be that as it may, after the suspension of the Trustees, the Temple was
under the administration of the Department, through Fit Person/Executive Officer,
71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for a period of 2 ¾ years. The Commissioner, HR CE, in the counter affidavit hasfiled a comparison chart as under:-
I. Comparison of Important Income Heads (For Fasli 1423, 1424 and to that
of Fasli 1426, 1427)S.N Important Heads of Income during the period of Income during the period of
Income Hereditary Trustees Official Fit Person and the
o. Administration Executive Officer
Administration
Fasli1423 Rs. Fasli1424 Rs. Fasli1426 Rs. Fasli1427 Rs.
1 General Hundial 91,95,719 84,11,666 1,80,64,549 1,84,48,095
2 Plate Collection NIL NIL 25,04,440 1,07,59,022
Hundial
3 Annadhanam Hundial 2,77,537 3,49,990 13,23,249 13,00,837
(FinancialYear)
4 Thiruppani Hundial NIL NIL 4,40,156 15,44,361
5 Tickets NIL NIL 67,62,931 1,13,44,910
i) Coconutand Fruit
ii) Milk Abhishekam
iii) RoseWater
Abhishekam
iv) Large Garland
v) HairTonsure Ticket
vi) Sandal Abhishekam
vii) Vibuthi
Abhishekam
viii) Quick Dharshan
6 DonatedArticles NIL NIL 1,27,995 3,53,51072
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7 LeaseRights NIL NIL 25,02,714 45,74,795
I) TonsuredHair
Auction
ii) EarBoring Auction
iii) GheeLamp sales
iv) Coconut
v) Goat, Hen, Cock
Collection
vi) ChildCradle
Collection
vii) Fire Wood
PiecesCollection
8 Cash Donation 8,206 22,001 44,923 1,06,208
9 Foreign Currency NIL NIL NIL 2,00,259
Total 94,81,462 87,83,657 3,17,70,957 4,86,31,997
10 Gold 20.250gram 30.600gram 241.500 416.000
gram gram
11 Silver 317.00gram 245.00gram 856.500 1768.000
gram gram
Total 337.250 275.600 1,098.000 2,184.000
gram gram gram gram
12 FixedDeposit 2,18,76,912 7,30,18,960
(Investment) (Forabout85Years) (For2¾Years)II. Specific Income Comparison Head of Incomes and the income derived from
therein which are existing both in the period of Hereditary Trustees and in the
period of official Fit Person73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.N Head of Income Income derived before Fit Income derived after Fit
o. Person took charge of the Person took charge of the
temple (Hereditary Trustees temple
period)
Period Amount Rs. Period Amount Rs.
1 General Hundial Fasli1418 3,79,04,973 From 5,15,62,252
Income (Excluding to 1425 (Upto 07.03.2016
Annadhana Hundial) 06.03.2016) to 31.12.2018
for7¾ years for2¾ years
2 Annadhana Hundial 2008-2009 14,73,547 2016-2017, 37,77,621
alone to 2015-2016 2017-2018,
8 years 01.04.2018
to 31.12.2018
2¾ years
3 Jewel Items– Gold Fasli1401 118.750 In2¾years 890.500
(1992)to grams grams
25.05.2015
(22years
and 5 months)
4 Jewel Items– Silver Fasli1401 1158grams In2¾years 3699
(1992)to grams
03.08.2015
(22years
and 8 months)
5 Fixed Deposits In85years 2,18,76,912 In2¾years 7,30,18,960
III. Head of Incomes which are introduced only in the period of official Fit
Person and the Income derived for the past 2 ¾ year
S.No. HeadofIncome Fasli1426 Fasli1427 Fasli1428 Total
Income Rs. Income Rs. Income Rs. Income
underthis
Head
Rs.
1 Tonsuring of 19,00,000 29,50,109 35,90,099 84,40,208
Human Hair
74
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 ArchanaiTicket 67,62,931 1,13,44,910 61,02,290 2,42,10,131
(Milk Abishegam, (01.07.2018
Rosewater to
Abishegametc.) 31.12.2018)
3 EarBoring Auction 53,000 65,000 77,500 1,95,500
4 Coconut 71,000 73,000 85,500 2,29,500
5 Goat,Hen,Cock 57,714 3,46,286 6,85,000 10,89,000
Collection
6 Ghee LampSales 4,21,000 10,98,900 NIL 15,19,900
7 ChildCradle NIL 41,500 45,700 87,200
(introduced
first time)
8 FireWoodPieces NIL NIL 6,500 6,500
Collection (introduced
first time)
9 Sale of Kanikkai 1,27,995 3,53,510 3,47,521 8,29,026
Articles such as (01.07.2018
BrassLampsetc., to
offered by devotees 31.12.2018)
10 ** Plate Collection 25,04,400 1,07,59,022 55,95,268 1,88,58,730
Hundial (10.03.2017 (01.07.2017 (01.07.2018
to to to
30.06.2017) 30.06.2018) 31.12.2018)
11 Tiruppani Hundial 4,40,156 15,44,361 6,13,970 25,98,487
** During the period of Hereditary Trustees, the Plate Collection amount was not
accounted into the temple income for the past 85 years upto Fasli 1425. During the
period of Fit Person, the said income is brought into the temple account.
IV. Overall Income of the Temple derived before Fit Person took charge of the
Temple (Hereditary Trustees period) and after Fit Person took charge of the Temple
S.No. Income derived before Fit Person Income derived after Fit Person
took charge of the temple took charge of the temple
(Hereditary Trustees period)
Period Amount Rs. Period Amount Rs.
75
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 FromFasli1403– 6,28,96,421 In 2 ¾ years 11,26,93,572
1425 (From
(Upto07.03.2016) 08.03.2016to
22¾years 31.12.2018)
V. Receipt of Foreign Currency Value during the period of Fit person In the
Fasli 1428, during the period of Fit Person, the Foreign Currency was received to
the value of Rs.2,00,259/-.
21.5.The said figures are supported by the data compiled by the authorities,
including the materials obtained through CCTV monitoring and other supervisory
mechanisms. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of Writ Court to
issue the following direction to the authority:
60. As per the practice in vogue, the two branches of Pandiyan
@ Botha poosari [5 pax] and Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari [5
pax] are having regular pooja turn alternatively for ten weeks, apart
from the chithirai festival turn. As per this arrangement, there should
be 10 poosaries and if a poosari is having the 1st turn of regular
pooja, his next turn would come, after ten weeks, in the 11th turn.
However, there are litigations regarding the claim of poosariship and
the consequent sharing of Hundi income. On a closer look, it appears
that roughly a sum of Rs.6.3 Crore was paid as poosaris’ share alone
for the past ten years. This huge income appears to be paving way for
the litigations. Most of the writ petitions before this Court are filed
claiming right in the hereditaryship and poosariship, as such they will
be getting some share from the Hundi collections. In fact, the
Department has furnished a list of 147 cases instituted by the persons
76
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
claiming to be Trustees in relation to this Temple and they are
contesting these cases by engaging Senior Counsels. Most of these
cases relate to Hundi share alone. On the other hand, it is a very sorry
state of affairs that even though the devotees are offering this much of
donations to the deity, neither the Department nor the Trustees have
made any developments in and around the Temple. Ultimately, the
deity has been left in lurch.
61. It appears that this Court, in yet another proceedings in
W.P.No.13 of 1993, dated 30.09.1999, while dealing with a suo-motu
revision raised by the Commissioner regarding the very same issue of
sharing the Hundi income, has observed as follows:-
“19. In fine, the Commissioner is entitled to proceed with the
impugned suo-motu proceedings (i) as and when the interest of the
public relating to the affairs of the respective temple requires such
action; (ii) the conditions imposed in the order dated 08.05.1981 are
violated; and (iii) any change of circumstances in the affairs of temple
requires the revisional authorities, to reopen the matter. …”
62. Notwithstanding the rise in the Temple’s Hundai income
from then to now, this Court is of the view that, given the number of
litigations owing to this much of share amount and the
misappropriation as well as maladministration, which led to the
action initiated by the Department, this change in circumstances in the
affairs of the Temple requires the revisional authority to reopen the
matter, as per the above order dated 30.09.1999.
Moreover, this Court, in A.S.No.801 of 2002, dated 02.11.2018,
has also held that the Joint Commissioner can revise the percentage of
the share from the Hundai income for the poosaries / Trustees taking
77
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
into consideration of all factors, like, the increase in Hundai income,
the rise in cost of living, the rising cost of paditharam expenses and
the rights of the Hereditary Trustees / poosaries to lead a life with
dignity.
64. Therefore, this Court directs the Commissioner, HR CE, to
take further action in this regard and this issue is answered
accordingly.
21.6.The learned Judge has also displayed a commendable picture about the
changing economic realities of the institution. The temple, which once functioned
within modest revenue at the time of O.A.No.77 of 1980, now commands substantial
revenues running into crores through plate and hundi collections. Time, however, is
an unrelenting sculptor of circumstances. Today, the temple is thronged by nearly
thousands of devotees per day. Plate collections alone exceed Rs.1 crore annually
Orders justified by necessity in 1980 cannot be assumed to carry forward unchanged
into the present, particularly where circumstances have significantly altered. The
earlier order must be confined to its factual context and cannot be treated as a
perpetual entitlement. Judicial allocations must be assessed in their contextual and
temporal framework judicial orders are products of their factual and temporal
context. The earlier arrangement must therefore be confined to the circumstances in
which it arose and cannot be treated as a perpetual entitlement. The Court notes the
extraordinary factual matrix: the temple attracts large congregations, devotees
78
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provide most pooja materials, and plate collections have overflow the hundi itself.
Continuation of the prior arrangement would lead to unjust enrichment, rewarding
necessity’s palliative with undeserved surplus. Therefore, What was once
sustenance in times of meagre income is now appropriately measured against the
temple’s robust present-day resources and cannot not allowed as a vehicle of unjust
enrichment and cannot be sanctified by custom in an era of abundance. It is well
settled jurisprudence principles that Law without conscience undermines justice;
justice without context is a cloak without warmth and Justice is not frozen in time; it
is a living principle . In the extraordinary circumstances now revealed, it is both just
and necessary to recalibrate the earlier order in O.A.No.77 of 1980, where Poojaris
share in the hundial collection fixed as 50% as directed in A.S.No.801 of 2002, dated
02.11.2018 considering huge plate collection. This court also reminder of following
social transformation principle:
“Since social justice is part of the scheme of justice itself, such special
measures shall neither to be disproportionate nor arbitrary. Borne in necessity, its
scope ought to be remitted by necessity itself”.
21.7.Accordingly, the learned Judge has correctly directed the Commissioner
to look into the issue and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. This
Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the order under challenge. On the contrary, to
interfere would be to condone a continuing wrong. It is also permissible to pass
79
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
extraordinary remedy upon consideration of extraordinary circumstances as statedby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab,
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the
reasoning or the directions of the learned Judge
22.Discussion on the submission of mediation:
During the course of the hearing, an additional contention was advanced that
the matter had been referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and that the
resultant report was not taken into consideration by the Writ Court. The said
submission is liable to be rejected at the threshold. The core issue for determination
is whether the parties to the mediation proceedings—namely, the private parties and
the rival claimants to the Poosariship and the collection of offerings—are legally
entitled to any relief. The dispute arises from the order passed by the competent
authorities, wherein it has been categorically held that none of the parties are entitled
to any relief under section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and Rules, 1964. The appellants
never arrived at any settlement. In such circumstances, any arrangement, settlement,
or consensus arrived at inter se between the parties in the course of mediation
cannot, in any manner, affect or override the statutory determination rendered by the
authorities. Accordingly, the mediation proceedings between the rival parties are
wholly irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication, particularly when both parties
stand disqualified from claiming any relief under the governing statutory framework.
80
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Therefore, from every perspective—both on facts and in law—the claim of theappellants is not legally maintainable.
23.Conclusion and suggestion:
It is a matter of deep-rooted religious belief among the devotees that “the
presiding deity of Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple” shortly called ”Pandi
Muni” safeguarding the city of Madurai. Therefore, the shrine of Pandi Muni,
revered as the sentinel spirit of Madurai, draws to its sacred precincts a ceaseless tide
of faith—an ocean of devotees whose numbers swell beyond arithmetical measure.
Faith, when it flows in such abundance, brings with it offerings in profusion, The
hundials overflow, the plates are laden, and the coffers ring with the currency of
devotion. The hereditary Poosaris(priests), instead of depositing the said collections
to the credit of the temple, have misappropriated the same for their personal gain.
Therefore where wealth gathers, the shadow of mismanagement lurks close behind.
Consequently, litigations are spontaneously increasing upon making rival claim one
after other to the extent of making throat cutting allegation against each other.
23.1. Hundi collection is not the fiefdoms of a poosari and is resource held in
trust for the community of worshippers and also impressed with a public character.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including in the case of Shri Jagannath
Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (3 Judges Bench)
81
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 422], has held that poosaris are not entitled to share in
monies deposited in the hundis as matter of right. Merely because some monies were
directed to be paid to meet their livelihood for their service of poosariship in lieu of
remuneration in the year by taking account of that perion income as necessity will
not confer any right on the poosaris to get any lion’s share in the line of succession
as if the said hundis collection is their family property. To invoke antiquated orders
of a bygone era as a licence for present impropriety is to mock the march of justice.
Hence, any attempt to divert these resources for personal aggrandisement is a
betrayal of the very faith that sustains the institution. This court also finds no
material to presume that the poosaris have done any welfare activities but have only
spent for their lavish expenditure and litigating expenditure. Learned judge also on
assessment of record has held that number of persons without doing poojas have
been receiving amount. Fighting for share in hundi collection as their family
property’s accrued income shocks judicial conscience of this court. More particularly
on the account of judicial notice of the prevailing condition of temples across the
State of Tamil Nadu, where several temples are in a dilapidated condition due to lack
of adequate funds. In many instances, financial condition to perform even a single
daily pooja is not viable and where numerous temples struggle for basic maintenance
and for the conduct of daily poojas due to lack of funds. The stark contrast between
such institutions and the present temple, which enjoys substantial and increasing
income, underscores the need for equitable and responsible financial management.
82
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
23.2.Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Committee
has been constituted, and the administration of the temple presently vests with the
said Committee. Further, this Court, in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024, reconstituted
the Committee and directed the Government to conclude revisions which are pending
before the secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment
Department wherein an enquiry be conducted into the allegations levelled for grave
charges against the so-called hereditary trustees who had already been removed
from the post of the hereditary trusteeship.
23.3.A perusal of the proceedings in A.S.No.1 of 1925, O.A.No.459 of 1933,
and WA.No.487 of 1969, along with the present litigations and the grave charges
pending consideration before Government, demonstrates that substantial and
consistent material has been produced by the competent authorities establishing
continuous mismanagement. Therefore, this Court considering the maladministration
in the year 1925 onwards even during the period of Valliammal and the amount of
both plate collection and Hundi collection and other emoluments are more than
crores, Rival claims were made by two groups, namely Pandiyan Poosari group and
Periyannan Poosari group, each asserting entitlement over temple rights by initiating
more than 130 litigations and certain individuals asserting themselves to be
representatives of elderly poosaris or hereditary trustees was also found not to be
supported by any legal entitlement or documentary proof and that too, without
83
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
performing regular poosaris or undertaking any developmental activities for the
benefit of the temple and also there was assault on the officers by the rival claimants
inside the temple premises and to safe guard the huge amount of devotees to be
spent for the welfare of the temple in near future,to cleanse the sanctum of all that
sullies its sanctity, it becomes imperative for the Government to intervene in exercise
of its statutory powers, this Court deems it proper to suggest to the Government to
take the temple under its control by invoking the various provision of the Act, 22
of 1959 when such power has been recognized by constitution of india and also
under statute as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India,
reported in AIR 1983 SC 1, and in other authoritative pronouncements.
23.4.As per the Rules of 2020 presently in force, the Department is vested with
the authority to initiate the process for appointment of a Poosari. In the event such a
process is undertaken, it is open to any of the legal heirs of Valiyammal to submit
their application for the said post and In the event of any application being submitted
by the legal heirs of Valliammai, the Department shall accord preference to such
applicants who possess no adverse antecedents and who have not been involved in
any act of mismanagement.
23.5.A further perusal of the records reveals a significant and disquieting
aspect, namely that the matter has been listed before different jurisdictional Judges at
84
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
various stages. This has resulted in material facts not being fully and consistently
disclosed before each forum, leading to suppression of relevant particulars and,
consequently, diversion or dilution of earlier orders have been passed by this Court.
It is also evident that, upon obtaining interim orders, the parties have, in several
instances, chosen not to prosecute the proceedings to their logical conclusion,
instead, they have settled matters inter se and continued to appropriate the hundi
collections of the temple, despite having no lawful authority or recognized right over
its administration. Such conduct clearly demonstrates a pattern of abuse of the
judicial process and unauthorized siphoning off temple funds. In view of these
special circumstances, and having regard to the paramount interest of safeguarding
the temple and its properties, this Court considers it appropriate, as a special
measure, to direct that the Registry place the matter before the Hon’ble Chief Justice
for appropriate orders. The Hon’ble Chief Justice may consider designating and
assigning all matters pertaining to Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple pending
this bench so as to ensure consistency in adjudication. Such a course would
effectively prevent multiplicity of proceedings before different Benches of this Court
and the civil courts, avoid conflicting orders, and ensure that all related issues are
comprehensively addressed in a coordinated manner.
85
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
24.Accordingly, all the writ appeal are dismissed with the following
directions:
(i)No person including the appellants in these writ appeals and the other
private respondents in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025 are entitled to claim right of
hereditary poosari of the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai.
(ii)The direction of writ Court at paragraph No.64 in the impugned judgment
and the reasoning in paragraph Nos.60 to 62 is hereby affirmed. Therefore, the
Commissioner of HR & CE Department, shall take necessary action within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii)This Court also directs the Government to pass the orders in the
proceedings pending before the Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and
Religious Endowment Department/first respondent as per W.A.(MD).No.397 of
2026, relating to the removal of the trustees of the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar
Temple, Madurai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order, as per the direction issued in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024.
(iv)This Court also suggests to the Government, namely, secretary to the
Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department/first
respondent in W.A.(MD).No.397 of 2026 to take over the administration of the
temple under its absolute control after following the due process of law.
86
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25.Accordingly, the writ appeals are devoid of merits and stand dismissed with
the above directions and the suggestion. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]
02.04.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious
Endowment (RE3.1) Department, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Department, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department,
Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.
4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Administration Department, Madurai.
5.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department, Madurai.
6.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
A/m. Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai.
7.Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Thirukovil, Represented by its Managing
Trustee,
Melamadai, Madurai.
8.The Board of Trustees Arulmighu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai,
Madurai-625 020, Through its Managing Trustee Ponnu Pandian.
87
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
W.A(MD)Nos.25, 396, 397, 398 and 399 of 2025 and 198, 199, 209 and 210 of 2026
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2130, 2131, 2211, 2212, 3148, 3149,3151,191 and 192 of 2025
02.04.2026
88
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
