Madras High Court
A.Subbulakshmi vs The Commissioner on 3 June, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.10991 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.10991 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.9786 of 2024
A.Subbulakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.18, Nasi Street,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
4.K.Kumaresan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.10991 of 2024
issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the
representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2024 and appoint Executive Officer
for Arulmigu Sri Vadivasal Perumal Temple, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar
For respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Special Government Pleader
*****
ORDER
This Writ Petition is disposed of, at the time of admission, without
issuing notice to the fourth respondent, as no adverse orders have been passed
against the fourth respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special
Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3.
3. There is a long history of dispute between the family of the petitioner
and the fourth respondent herein. Earlier, a suit was filed against the petitioner’s
husband in O.S.No.667 of 1996, which was allowed by the Trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 27.08.1999 along with the suit filed in O.S.No.350 of
1996. The issue came before the Principle Bench of this Court in S.A.(MD) Nos.
799 and 800 of 2005, in which, the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner’s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
husband was S.A.(MD) No.800 of 2005 was partly allowed. The Court by its
common judgment and decree dated 23.07.2012 observed as under:
“It may be true that the defendants are not able to
produce any material to show that Dhayathees of Kollapani are
in any manner entitled to the management and administration of
the temple and its properties. However, the plaintiff side witness
P.W.1 would not definitely deny the right of Dhayathees of
Kollapani group in this regard. He is only conveniently evade to
answer such case suggested to him in the course of cross
examination. But, as far as the immovable property bearing
Door Nos.222 and 224 are concerned, the same are leased out
to the defendants and the defendants executed the documents
from 1979 onwards, not in favour of the plaintiff trust, but only
in favour of the temple. While Exs.A12, dated 01.04.1979 is the
supportive letter given by the defendatns 1 & 2 in favour of the
plaintiff trust, Ex.A13, dated 14.03.1986, is executed by second
defendant K.Aarogyaraj S/o.Kandasamy and two other tenants
and Ex.A14 is again executed by the first defendant and two
other tenants. As a matter of fact, the body of Ex.A14 refers to
the name of the second defendant, but the same is signed by the
first defendant and not by the second defendant. The temple is
only referred to as the owner of the non-residential building in
the documents.”
4. It is noticed that against the judgment and decree in S.A.(MD) No.
799 of 2005, Review Petition in Rev.P(MD) No.24 of 2014 was filed by the
President, Vadivasal Srinivasa Perumal Kovil Trust, Rajapalayam and the same is
also pending before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The case of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is excluding
the petitioner and her family from entering the temple stating that the temple was
a private temple, belonging to the fourth respondent.
6. It is submitted that the temple is an ancestral temple of the family of
the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and their pangalees and therefore,
the petitioner is entitled to equal right to worship the deity in the aforesaid temple
namely, Arulmigu Sri Vadivasal Perumal Temple, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar
District.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and considered the fact that the suit, that was filed against the
petitioner’s husband in O.S.No.667 of 1996, was allowed and thereafter, the
decision was reversed by this Court in S.A.(MD) No.800 of 2005 vide order dated
23.07.2012 along with S.A.(MD)No.799 of 2005 against the judgment and decree
in O.S.No.350 of 1996 filed against the tenants, this Court is inclined to direct the
second respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation strictly in
accordance with law after due notice to the fourth respondent, within a period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state, before
passing the order, the fourth respondent shall be heard.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with above directions. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 03.06.2024
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Madurai.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.18, Nasi Street,
Virudhunagar – 626 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
03.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
