Madras High Court
C.Saravanamuthu vs R.Udhaya Kumar(Oor Gounder) on 21 June, 2022
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD).Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3366 and 3933 of 2022
W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022
1.C.Saravanamuthu
2.S.Ajith Kumar .. Appellants/8&9 Respondents
Vs.
1.R.Udhaya Kumar(Oor Gounder)
2.T.s.Thirumalai(Thalavai Gounder)
3.P.Raju(Nattuk Gounder) ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.The District Collector,
Dindigiul District.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul.
7.The Tahsildar,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
8.The Joint Commissioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Madurai.
9.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Dindigul.
10.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thirumogur Kalamega
Perumal Temple, Madurai,
As incharge Kailasanathar Temple,
Natham.
11.M.Suruli
12.Tamilvannan
13.Murugan
14.R.Chinnamuthu
15.Kalaiarasan
16.M.Ganesan
17.Senthil
18.K.Chandramuthu
19.K.Muthuraj
20.K.Lala Krishnan
21.Thangavel
22.Rajiv Gandhi
23.Murugan
24.V.Durai
25.V.Dhanagncheyan
26.S.Selvam
27.K.Suruli
28.Kannan
29.S.Poosaithurai
30.K.Mani ... Respondents 4 to 30/
Respondents 1 to 7 & 10 to 29
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 dated 18.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For R1 and 2 : Mr.H.Laksmishankar
For R4 to R9 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate
For R10 : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan
W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022
Rasathi .. Appellant/Proposed Party
Vs.
1.R.Udhaya Kumar(Oor Gounder)
2.T.s.Thirumalai(Thalavai Gounder)
3.P.Raju(Nattuk Gounder) ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.The District Collector,
Dindigiul District.
5.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul.
7.The Tahsildar,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
8.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Madurai.
9.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Dindigul.
10.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Thirumogur Kalamega
Perumal Temple, Madurai,
As incharge Kailasanathar Temple,
Natham.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
11.C.Saravanamuthu
12.S.Ajith Kumar
13.M.Suruli
14.Tamilvannan
15.Murugan
16.R.Chinnamuthu
17.Kalaiarasan
18.M.Ganesan
19.Senthil
20.K.Chandramuthu
21.K.Muthuraj
22.K.Lala Krishnan
23.Thangavel
24.Rajiv Gandhi
25.Murugan
26.V.Durai
27.V.Dhanagncheyan
28.S.Selvam
29.K.Suruli
30.Kannan
31.S.Poosaithurai
32.K.Mani ... Respondents 4 to 32/
Respondents 1 to 29
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order
passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019, dated 18.03.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pon Ramkumar
For R1 and 2 : Mr.H.Laksmishankar
For R4 to R9 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam
Government Advocate
For R10 : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan
For R11to19, 29,
31 : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,)
These two writ appeals have been filed against the same order passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 dated
18.03.2022.
2. The appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 was appointed as a
hereditary trustee of the temple known as “Arulmigu Mahalakshi Amman
Temple, Senthurai, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District”. The writ petition in
W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 came to be filed for issuance of a writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition to appoint a Fit
Person or an Adhoc Committee for the management of the Arulmigu
Malahlakshmi Amman Temple, Sendurai, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. In
the said writ petition, several allegations were made against the hereditary
trustee, viz., the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022. It is not in dispute that
during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of
2022 was removed from hereditary trusteeship, by an order dated 10.09.2020. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
is also admitted that the wife of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 who
is also the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022, was appointed as a hereditary
trustee by order of Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, dated 10.09.2020, under
Section 5(2) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has filed an appeal as
against his removal from hereditary Trusteeship. Even though the appellant in
W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 was appointed as hereditary Trusteeship as a person
in line of succession, by order dated 10.09.2020, the writ petition was disposed
of by the learned Single Judge without even impleading the hereditary trustee
as per the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, dated 10.09.2020. By order
impugned in the writ petition, the HR&CE Department was directed to take
immediate steps to appoint a Fit Person, who will take charge of the temple and
to administer the same. The learned Single Judge further directed the official
respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD)No.
385 of 2022 submitted that the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 is no
more a hereditary trustee of the temple and that she was appointed as hereditary
trustee under Section 54(2) of the Act. She being the only person succeeded to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
the office of hereditaryship, entitled to administer the temple as a hereditary
trustee in her own right. Merely because her husband was disqualified, she is
not disqualified. It is admitted that on the application filed by the father of the
appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 he was appointed as a hereditary trustee
by declaring the office as hereditary, by proceedings of the Joint Commissioner
dated 26.08.1991. This order was passed under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. After his father died
on 26.12.2013, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 was continued as a
hereditary trustee as a defacto-trustee. He also filed an application to appoint
him as a hereditary trustee as a person next in the line of succession to his
father. However, that application was dismissed holding that he has done some
irregularities, during the tenure as a trustee. Challenging the said order, the
appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner. After availing the statutory remedy, the appellant in
W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has no locus standi to maintain the appeal against the
order of the learned Single Judge directing to appoint a Fit Person in the temple
for proper administration of the temple. Giving liberty to the appellant in
W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 pursue his appeal remedy, which is a statutory
remedy available to him, writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
5.However, the fact that the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022
has been appointed as hereditary trustee, by proceedings dated 10.09.2020
issued by the Joint Commissioner in reference No.br.K.e.f.vz;.
6031/2020/M1, is not in dispute.
6.Very strangely, the fact that the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of
2022 has been appointed as a hereditary trustee is not even brought to the
notice of this Court. The learned Single Judge is under the impression that the
appellant was appointed as hereditary trustee by her husband, who is the
appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022. In these circumstances, the appellant is
an aggrieved person and the order passed without hearing the appellant is
irregular. Whether the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 is a hereditary
trustee, is not an issue before this Court and appointment as a hereditary trustee
is not put under challenge in any proceeding and hence, this Court is unable to
sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. It is true that the
appellant/husband has been accused of several charges and he might have
committed breach of trust. However, the order appointing the appellant/wife
independently by the Joint Commissioner cannot be set aside and the HR&CE
Department cannot simply be directed to appoint a Fit Person when there is a
hereditary trustees in office. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge
passed in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 is set aside. It is open to any of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
respondents to challenge the order appointing the appellant as a hereditary
trustee, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(S.S.S.R.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
21.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: yes
To
1.The District Collector,
Dindigiul District.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Dindigul District.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul.
4.The Tahsildar,
Natham Taluk,
Dindigul District.
5.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Madurai.
9.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
S.S. SUNDAR, J.,
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.,
Ns
W.A.(MD).Nos.336 and 385 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.3366 and 3933 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
