Madras High Court
T.Ramesh vs Gopinath on 1 December, 2023
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD)No.2035 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :01.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.A.(MD)No.2035 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.16208 of 2023
T.Ramesh ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Gopinath
2.The Joint Commissioner,
H.R.& C.E., Department,
Dindigul ...Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, against the order
passed by in W.P.(MD)No.18622 of 2023 dated 01.09.2023.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Chandrasekar
For R2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai
Special Government Pleader
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD)No.2035 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts that are necessary for disposal of
the writ appeal are as follows:
(i)There is a temple at Reddiar Chathiram, Dindigul District in the name
of Arulmighu Gopinathasamy Thirukovil. The temple is an exempted temple and
administered by the Board of trustees. The scheme for the temple attained finality
by virtue of the decree passed in A.S.No.2 of 1942 dated 07.04.1943. This is a
temple, where the Poosaries of the temple are the hereditary trustees. With these
facts, there is no dispute between the writ petitioner and the appellant.
(ii)The ancestor of the writ petitioner and the appellant, one Subbaya
Maniagaran had four wives. Through these four wives, he begot three sons.
Between the descendents of Subbaya Maniagaran, there was a partition deed,
which had been entered into on 10.03.1950. It is the claim of the appellant that by
virtue of the partition deed, he is entitled to certain rights in the property. This
was resisted by the writ petitioner before the civil Court and by way of a writ
petition, on the ground that the right from 1950, till the order was passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hindu Religious and Charitable Department directing him to hand over the charge
to the appellant, it was his branch of family, which was in possession and
enjoyment of the poosariship rights. The learned Single Judge directed the parties
to approach the Civil Court. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
2.Insofar as the rights of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment
Department under Section 54 of the Act is concerned, it has been vested with the
statutory rights to decide whether the office of a religious Institution is hereditary
or not. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act does not give the
second respondent right to decide as to who should succeed to the office. This
matter deals with civil rights and therefore, it can be gone into only by the
competent civil Court in a properly instituted suit. This issue has already been
settled by a series of judgment of this Courts. They are:
(i) Sastri Ammal Vs. Pravalavarna Naicker, 1955 M.W.N.
865,
(ii) Chinnathambi Moopan and another Vs. Mamundi Moopan and
another, (1966) 1 M.L.J. 361,
(iii)A.Krishnaswami Raju Vs. Krishna Raja and another, (1968) 1
M.L.J. 119,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iv) Aviyur Mariamman Temple Vs. T.N.Sundaramoorthy Pillai and
another, (1981) 1 M.L.J. 392 and
(v) Karuppa Odayar Vs. A.Maruda Muthiriar and
another, (2000) 1 M.L.J. 549.
3.This is especially so in the present case since there exists a partition
deed and it is pleaded by the writ petitioner that the partition deed was not given
effect insofar as the office of the hereditary poosariship is concerned.
4.The right as to who is to hold the office will have to be decided only
by the civil Court by following the a aforesaid verdicts. We do not find any error
in the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this writ appeal is
dismissed. It is left open to the parties to approach the civil court insofar as the
rights of poosariship/trusteeship is concerned. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.)
01.12.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ta
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
ta
To
The Joint Commissioner,
H.R.& C.E., Department,
Dindigul
01.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
