Madras High Court
K.Ayyampillai vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P.(MD)No.19389 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P.(MD)No.19389 of 2024
and
WMP(MD)Nos.16431, 16432 and 16433 of 2024
1.K.Ayyampillai
2.S.Sudalai Suresh
3.S.Meikanda Muthu Pillai
4.N.Murugan
5.A.Murugan Pillai
6.A.Pechirajan
7.S.Subramaniya Pillai
8.C.Pitchaiyandi Pillai
9.S.Maruthanayagam Pillai
10.M.Gomathi Nayagam Pillai
11.S.Chinnathambiya Pillai ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
W.P.(MD)No.19389 of 2024
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Karkkuvel Ayyanar Thirukovil,
Their Kudiyiruppu,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Thakkar/Fit Person,
Arulmigu Karkkuvel Ayyanar Thirukovil,
Their Kudiyiruppu,
Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District.
6.N.Gandhimathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the
impugned notice affixed by the fourth respondent herein in his nil proceedings
nil dated and quash the same as illegal and further directing the respondents
herein not to interfere from the petitioner's right to do pooja and enjoy the
produce from the tamarind trees, the right to get emolument (Thattukanikai) or
perquisite in the Kallarvettu Festival and Panguni Uthira Festival, right to get
vetti and thundu and the right to get share in coconut cracking fee in Arulmigu
Karukuvel Ayyanar ThiruKovil, Therikudiyiruppu, Tiruchendur Taluk,
Thoothukudi District till disposal of the pending proceedings under Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
W.P.(MD)No.19389 of 2024
63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959
as per the judgment passed in Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.572 of 2006
before this Court by considering the petitioner's representation dated
06.08.2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by,
Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice affixed by the
fourth respondent in the temple premises, insofar as it states that any one who
attempts to perform poojas contrary to the directions of this Court in Second
Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.572 of 2006 would not be permitted.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier they
had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 before the District Munsif Court,
Tiruchendur seeking (a)for a declaration that they are the hereditary poojaris of
Arulmigu Karukuvel Ayyanar ThiruKovil, Therikudiyiruppu, Tiruchendur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Taluk, Thoothukudi District, (b) for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled
to remuneration attached to the office of the Hereditary poojaris and (c) seeking
cancellation of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Thiruchendur in his
proceedings in DTR.No.10 of 1976, dated 08.04.1991, wherein there was a
change in the name of the patta which is stated to have originally been in the
name of the petitioner and was sought to be converted in the name of the deity.
The above suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on the premise that, the
remedy, if any, would lie only under the Section 63(e) of the HR and CE Act.
As against the same, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.04 of 2005 before the
Sub Court, Thoothukudi. The first appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the
suit with regard to the suit prayer (a) and (c). However, the findings of the Trial
Court with regard to prayer (b) was reversed and the appeal was partly allowed
granting the suit prayer (b) in favour of the plaintiffs. The same was challenged
by the Executive Officer by way of Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.572 of
2006. The above Second Appeal was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2024, by
finding that the remedy would lie before the Joint Commissioner, in terms of
Section 63 of the Act. After referring to Section 63 and Section 108 of the Act,
it was observed as under:
12.A combined reading of the above mentioned sections
make it clear that the Joint Commissioner is the competent
authority to decide whether any person is entitled by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
custom or otherwise to any honour, emolument or
perquisite in a religious institution. It is also clear that no
suit or legal proceedings shall be instituted in a Civil Court
in respect of a matter or dispute for determination of which
a provision is made in the HR and CE Act. In the present
suit, the plaintiffs are claiming certain
remuneration/perquisites like right to enjoy the usufructs of
the tamarind trees standing in the suit temple lands as an
old custom. As far as claim of the plaintiffs with regard to
remuneration and perquisites etc attached to the office of
the Poojariship is concerned, when the prayer (a) is
negatived by the Courts below, the Plaintiffs are not
entitled to claim those ritghts which is depending on their
status as poojaris. In view of amendment to Section 55 of
HR and CE Act abolishing hereditary rights in Poojariship,
the Courts below are justified in rejecting prayer(a) in the
plaint. Regarding the claim made by the plaintiffs with
regard to the perquisites/share in the offerings by way of
long established custom in the temple is concerned, the said
issue cannot be raised before the Civil Court in view of
specific bar under Section 63(e) of HR and CE Act. The
entitlement of the plaintiffs for perquisites/remuneration or
share in the offerings made in the suit temple by virtue of
long established custom and usage in the temple, the
competent authority is the Joint Commissioner in an
enquiry under Section 63 of the HR and CE Act. Therefore,
the Civil Court jurisdiction to decide the said right of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiffs is expressly barred by the provisions of HR and
CE Act. Therefore the prayer (b) is also not maintainable
before the Civil Court. The substantial question of law
taken up for consideration is answered accordingly in
favour of the appellant and against the respondents. In view
of answer to the substantial question of law, the Second
Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree
passed by the First Appellate Court granting prayer (b) in
the suit and the suit in its entirety is dismissed.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner had in the meanwhile filed an
Original Application before the Joint Commissioner of HR and CE Department
under Section 63(e) of the Act on 03.03.2023 and the same was returned on
09.04.2024 and represented on 06.06.2024. It was submitted that until the
disposal of the Original Application before the Joint Commissioner, the
petitioner must be permitted to perform the poojas and enjoy the produce from
the tamarind trees, the right to get emolument (Thattukanikai) or perquisite in
the Kallarvettu Festival and Panguni Uthira Festival, right to get vetti and
thundu and the right to get share in coconut cracking fee in Arulmigu Karukuvel
Ayyanar ThiruKovil, Therikudiyiruppu, Tiruchendur Taluk, Thoothukudi
District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate
General that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable, in as much as, the
petitioner has already approached the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 (e)
of the Act. Having approached the Joint Commissioner, it may not be open for
the petitioner now to seek any remedy before this Court, for it would then mean,
the petitioners are permitted to avail parallel remedies. It has been consistently
held that one cannot be permitted to pursue parallel remedies (riding two horses
at the same time) and such practice is frowned upon by the Apex Court
consistently.1.
5. It was also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that
presently, the poojas are being performed by one Ramasamy and if need be,
they may appoint additional poosari, to which the learned counsel for the
petitioner expressed apprehension that, the entire Original Application may be
rendered infructuous, if they are permitted to appoint poosari.
6. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits
of the submissions made on either side. The Original Application before the
1. Jai Singh v. Union of India, (1977) 1 SCC 1; Orissa Power Transmission Corpn.Ltd. v. Asian School of
Business Management Trust, (2013) 8 SCC 738
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Joint Commissioner shall be disposed of within a period of 10 weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. As an interim arrangement, this Court is
of the view that the poojas will be performed by Mr.Ramasamy. If appointments
of poosaris or additional poosaris are required to perform the poojas, the same
may be made by the concerned/appropriate authority. It is made clear that the
permission to Mr.Ramasamy and appointment of poosaris or additional poosaris
to perform poojas is only by way of interim arrangement and the same is subject
to the outcome of the Original Application before the Joint Commissioner. The
appellants are entitled to putforth all their objections before the Joint
Commissioner.
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.08.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
Nsr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Thoothukudi.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Nsr
12.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
