Madras High Court
Tiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkan ... vs Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal ... on 10 November, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
W.A.(MD) No.1048 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
1.Tiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkan Vagaiyara
Thayathigal Sangam
Door No.7, Nadar Pillayar Kovil Street
Thiruthangall Town
Sivakasi Taluk
Virudhunagar District
2.Chennaivazh Thiruthangal Nadar
Kottapakkan Vagaiyara Thayathigal Sangam
Old No.758, New No.130
T.H.Road, New Washermentpet
Chennai-600 008 ... Appellants
-vs-
1.Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyarakkal Thayathigal
Sangam Sivakasi
No.2/576, Bharathi Nagar
Reserve Line
Sivakasi West-626 124
represented by its President
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The District Collector
Virudhunagar District
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Sivakasi
Virudhunagar District ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 25.08.2014, passed in W.P.(MD) No.13619 of 2014, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian
for Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : Mr.A.V.Arun for R1
Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate for R2 & R3
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD) No.13619 of 2014, dated 25.08.2014.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The writ petition was filed seeking mandamus by Vetrignaniyar
Vagaiyara against Tiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkam Vagaiyara in respect of
conducting Balasthapatham and Kumbabishekam of Sri Therkku
Malaiamman Deity in Sivakasi Town. The administration of the temple and its
property are to be jointly maintained and enjoyed by the two groups. Whileso,
for the purpose of proper administration, O.S.No.59 of 2012 was filed by
Vetrignaniyar Vagaiyara and the same was decreed by the District Munsif
Court, Virudhunagar, on 20.09.2012. Whileso, Thiruthangal Nadar
Kottapakkam Vagaiyara unilaterally went ahead with the preparation of
conducting Balasthapatham and Kumbabishekam of the deity on 27.08.2014
without the consent of the writ petitioner Vagaiyara. The representation given
by the writ petitioner to the said effect was not considered and hence, a writ of
mandamus was filed. In the said writ petition, this Court, after considering
the rival contentions has made the following observations and passed the
following orders:
“10.After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the material placed on record, it
is prima facie clear that the respondents 3 and 4 are
proceeded unilaterally. It may be true that the
Kumbabhishekam festival or Balasthapatham or other
functions related thereto or not been specifically
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mentioned in the scheme decree. It is not the case of
either of the party that the scheme decree arose on
account of a problem during the Kumbabhishekam
festival or that matter any other festival. Rather, the
decree was for a scheme of administration of the
temple. In this connection, attention of this Court was
invited to Clause X and XI of the decree dated
20.09.2012. From a perusal of the same, it is seen
that no person has got exclusive right in the
administration of the temple. Further, an appeal is
pending before the Sub Court in A.S.No.54 of 2012.
The respondents 3 and 4 in the counter affidavit
would state that their predecessor in office did not
suitably defend the suit. In any event, there is a
decree operating, which binds the respondents 3 and
4. Therefore, the question of now unilaterally
performing the poojas or function connected with
Kumbabhishekam or stating that they have no idea to
change the idol of the main deity and only usual
procedures are being conducted as per agamasastras,
would not be a valid defence for the respondents 3
and 4 in the light of the decree passed by the civil
Court.
11. Thus, considering the above submission,
this Court is of the view that the respondents 3 and 4
should be restrained from proceeding unilaterally with
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the matter. It is always open to the parties to
approach the second respondent for appropriate
orders and then, proceed to conduct the festival in
accordance with law as per the decree of the civil
Court in O.S.No.59 of 2012.”
3. Aggrieved by that, Thiruthangal Nadar Kottapakkan Vagaiyara
has preferred the present writ appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass the impugned order
based on the Scheme Order passed in O.S.No.59 of 2012, which was
challenged by the appellants herein, and the same was decreed. Hence, the
observations made and the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge warrants reconsideration and to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the appellants herein
consistently admitted the fact that both the property as well as the
administration of the Temple were jointly conducted by both the groups and
any attempt to proceed with the administration or conduct of festival
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
unilaterally will go against the decree passed in the year 1920 and the
subsequent decree restraining the appellants herein. The learned counsel
would bring to the notice of this Court the injunction decree passed in O.S.No.
86 of 2006 against the appellants herein granting permanent injunction for
putting up construction without the knowledge of the first respondent herein
and also it is seen from the facts of the case that though the right of joint
administration of the temple is disputed / denied by the appellants herein, the
Courts, at earlier stages and in different suits, have recognized the right of the
first respondent / writ petitioner to have say in the administration of the
Temple. In such circumstances, the unilateral attempt to conduct
Kumbabishekam, excluding the first respondent / writ petitioner, is not
conducive and it is against the findings of the Courts in the other disputes.
6. Though the worship and administration of the temple may be a
religious affair, when it touches upon the public peace and tranquility, the
State has every right to interfere and this Court having considered the nature
of the dispute between the two groups in administering the Temple and
conducting Kumbabishekam has rightly brought in the revenue
administration to supervise the temple affairs. Except to point out the
subsequent development regarding the suit in O.S.No.59 of 2012, this Court
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
finds that there is no necessity to interfere with the observations made by the
learned Single Judge and the same is confirmed. It is open to the parties to
have a consensus in conducting Kumbabishekam or else shall wait for the
disposal of the second appeal, which is pending. As far as the prayer sought
for in the writ petition is concerned, this Court is of the view that the
observations made by the learned Single Judge hold good and require no
interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
10.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
1.The District Collector,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sivakasi,
Virudhunagar District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
W.A.(MD) No.1048 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
10.11.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
