Madras High Court
The Idol Of Arulmighu Sri vs The Hindu Religious And ... on 19 April, 2022
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 to 3 of 2013
1.The Idol of Arulmighu Sri
Vadabadrakaliamman Private Temple and
Trust represented by its Hereditary
Poojakar and trustee Dr.M.Deivasigamani Swamigal, (late)
No.24-B, Kalliammankovil Street,
Chinthamani, Tiruchirappalli-2.
2.D.Anjalai ... Petitioners
(2nd petitioner is substituted
for deceased sole petitioner
vide order dated 08.09.2016)
Vs.
1.The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Tiruchirappalli.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Rockfort,
Tiruchirappalli-2.
4.The Executive Officer,
Bairavanatha Swami Temple,
Tiruchirappalli-8. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records of the third respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.No.3125/13/A5, dated 27.09.2013
and quash the same and consequently forbearing the respondents from
intervening with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner temple
in any manner whatsoever.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Maria Roseline
For R1 to R3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader.
For R4 : M/s.S.Devasena
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Certiorari to quash order of
the 3rd respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.No.3125/13/A5, dated 27.09.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
2.The writ petition was disposed of on 04.04.2022 after hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader for the
respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent with the
following observations:-
“The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a Certiorarified
Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent in Se.Mu.Ka.No.
3125/13/A5, dated 27.09.2013 and quash the same and consequently
forbearing the respondents from intervening with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the petitioner temple.
2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the official
respondent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner had
challenged impugned order, dated 27.09.2013 of the third respondent
appointing the fourth respondent as a fit person of Arulmigu Sri
Vadabadrakaliamman Temple located in No.24B Kaliamman Kovil Street,
Cinthamani, Trichy-2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Temple,
which is a private Temple and the Temple is situated in a patta land belong to
the founder namely, Dharmalingam Pillai.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a suit in
this connection was filed as early as 1967 in O.S.No.152 of 1967 and that the
suit was decreed as prayed for wherein, the third respondent herein was also
a defendant. It is submitted that despite the same, the third respondent has
proceeded to appoint the fourth respondent as the fit person based on a
report of an Inspector, dated 27.09.2013, copy which was also not furnished
to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had
also sent a legal notice on 04.11.2008 and despite the same impugned order
has been passed.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the official respondent
is unable to confirm whether any appeal was filed against the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.152 of 1967 which came to be decreed on 02.02.1971.
Considering the above, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition by
quashing the impugned order with liberty to the third respondent to issue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
appropriate notice to the petitioner before proceeding to appoint a fit person.
The third respondent shall consider the judgment and decree of the trial
Court namely, the District Munsif Court at Trichy in O.S.No.152 of 1967 vide
judgment and decree, dated 02.02.1971 before taking a decision as to
whether it is a fit case for appointing a fit person under the provisions of the
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
5. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the above observations.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”
3.After the order was passed, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent
represented that there is an attempt to use the temple property by the petitioner,
who claims herself to be the wife of the deceased petitioner/self styled hereditary
trustee, Dr.M.Deivasigamani Swamigal.
4.Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the
photographs to show that the temple property has become inaccessible and the
petitioner and her daughters are residing in front of the temple by making the
temple inaccessible. It is submitted that they are not only using it as a place for
shelter but also using it as a kitchen for cooking food and for drying their cloths.
It is submitted that there is also a doubt as to whether the 2 nd petitioner, who has
been impleaded after the death of M.Deivasigamani Swamigal, was the wife of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
Dharmalingam Pillai.
5.According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, the deceased 1st
petitioner is now represented by D.Anjalai was working as a Sweeper and was not
the wife of the deceased petitioner late. M.Deivasigamani Swamigal, who himself
was a self styled and a self declared hereditary trustee without any authority of
law.
6.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for
the official respondents and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, I am
inclined to recall the order dated 04.04.2022 and dispose of this writ petition by
permitting the 2nd petitioner to file an appropriate application under Section 54 of
the HR & CE Act, 1959. It is open for the 2nd petitioner to establish her
credentials that she is the wife of Dharmalingam Pillai, who was appointed as the
hereditary trustee after the death of Kandhasamy Pillai.
7.The above writ petition thus stands disposed by permitting the 2nd
petitioner to file appropriate application before the 2nd respondent/the Joint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
Commissioner under Section 54 of the Act, within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order, to recognize her rights to step into the
shoes of late.Dharmalingam Pillai, who was said to be the hereditary trustee, after
the death of late.Kandhasamy Pillai. If such an application is filed within such
time, the 2nd respondent shall consider and dispose of the same on merits and in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All further rights of the
petitioners shall be subject to the final outcome of the proposed petition. The
petitioners shall vacate the temple within a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order and the management of the said temple shall stand
vested with the 4th respondent till such application to be filed by the petitioners is
disposed of by the 2nd respondent/the Joint Commissioner.
8.The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observation.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 19.04.2022
Internet : Yes / No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment,
Rockfort, Tiruchirappalli-2.
C.SARAVANAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
mm
W.P.(MD) No.16741 of 2013
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
