[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Palanichamy vs Poochikalai on 30 April, 2026
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Judgment reserved on 02.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on .04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and
CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.593 of 2025
Palanichamy .. Appellant / 2nd Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Poochikalai
2.Poochikalai
3.Chinnasamy .. Respondents / defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal fild under Section 100 CPC against the decree and
Judgment pssed in A.S.No.136 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Manapparai dted 16.10.2024 reversing the Judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.256 of 2000 on the file of the Additionl District Munsif Court,
Manappari, dated 11.07.2018.
For Appellant : Dr.C.Gunaseelarupan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.A. Saravanan
For respondent No.4 : Mr.N. Ramanathan
in CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
JUDGMENT
The second plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
first Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.
2. I have heard Dr.C.Gunaseela Rupan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr. A. Saravanan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and
Mr.A.N. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the proposed 4th
respondent in CMP(MD) No. 16732 of 2025.
3. The brief facts that may be necessary to adjudicate the present Second
Appeal are as hereunder:
(i) The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 2009 seeking a relief of
declaration to declare them as pujari in Arulmigu Soolapidariamman Temple
and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner
interfering with the Pujariship rights. The suit was contested by the defendants
stating that the plaintiffs did not have any pujari rights in the temple and they
were not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. After trial, the suit was decreed on
11.07.2018. After the decree dated 11.07.2018, a fit person was appointed for
the administration and management of Arulmigu Soolapidari Amman Temple.
Before the first Appellate Court, the first appeal was preferred by the first
defendant, and the same was allowed on 16.10.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
ii) Pending the first appeal, the proposed 4th respondent, viz., the fit
person of the temple, moved an application in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 seeking to
implead himself as a party respondent in the first appeal. However, the said
application was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2022. The proposed 4th
respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the impleading application, and
the said matter attained finality. However, in the present Second Appeal, the
first respondent has taken out CMP(MD) No. 16732 of 2025 seeking to implead
the 4th respondent, the fit person of the temple, contending that though the 4th
respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the application in I.A. No. 1 of
2022, there was no occasion for the first respondent to take up the matter
earlier. Further, in view of the pendency of the first appeal, though the first
appeal has now been decided in favour of the first respondent, the first
respondent states that the 4th respondent is a proper and necessary party for
effective adjudication of the Second Appeal.
iii) The above said application has been strongly opposed by the learned
counsel for the appellant, contending that when an attempt to implead the fit
person was unsuccessful even before the first Appellate Court, it is not open to
the successful first respondent to seek impleadment of the fit person of the
temple in the present Second Appeal. It is also his contention that the fit person
came to be appointed only pursuant to the decree granted in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
plaintiffs and, therefore, the fit person does not have any role to play. It is also
his contention that the management and administration of the temple is an
entirely different issue, and the suit is only to declare the pujari rights of the
appellant and hence, the fit person is neither a proper nor a necessary party, and
therefore, he seeks dismissal of the application.
iv) By order dated 16.03.2026, I had directed the CMP to be taken along
with the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal, along with the CMP
has been argued by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
4. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the
following substantial question of law was framed:
“Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in deciding the appeal
solely on the ground that the amended provisions of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act are applicable to the temple when the
temple is not having any permanent structure, but only a Peedam with
Soolam?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:
(i) The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the plaintiffs are
claiming to establish and declare rights which are hereditary in nature and also
based on customary practice, which has been in existence from time
immemorial in the plaint temple, viz., Soolapidari Amman Temple. He would
refer to Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 (herein after referred as “Act”), contending that the said
Section cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. On the contrary, it is
his submission that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in
1972 (2) SCC 11 in the case of Seshammal and others etc. vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (2)
SCC 725 in the case of Adi Saiv Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and others vs.
Government of Tamil Nadu and another, have been subsequently followed by
the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 27.06.2022 in W.P.(MD)
Nos. 15739 and 16287 of 2021 in the case of Chellapa Iyer vs. State of Tamil
Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and others. Relying on the above judgments, the
learned counsel for the appellant states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well
as this Court have consistently held that when it comes to the appointment of
archakas, the ratio laid down in the cases of Seshammal and others and Adi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
Saiv Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam will have to be applied, and if there is any
appointment contrary to the said provisions or directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it shall be open to the aggrieved persons to challenge the
individual appointment in the manner known to law.
(ii) Relying on relevant paragraphs in the above three decisions, the
learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
also accepted and adopted the hereditary principle, which has been duly
recognised under Section 55 of the Act, and in such circumstances, the plaintiffs
were certainly entitled to have their rights declared. This is especially so when
the Division Bench of this Court in Chellapa Iyer case has also held that an
aggrieved person is entitled to challenge any appointment made contrary to the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act
and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seshammal and others and
Adi Saiv Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam, in the manner known to law.
(iii) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further
contend that the plaintiffs have filed Exs. A1 and A2, which clearly recognize
the factum of the plaintiffs performing pooja in the temple. The learned counsel
would further state that, in view of the customary rights and practices in place,
the authorities cannot invoke Section 55 of the Act to deny the entitlement of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
the plaintiffs to pujari rights.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
would state that Section 55 of the Act has undergone an amendment and the
case of the appellant probably would have no legs to stand in view of the
amended Section 55 of the Act, which has also been dealt with in the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Seshammal and Others case. He would
therefore contend that the amended Section 55 of the Act makes it very clear
that the practice of recognising any customary or hereditary rights has been
taken away under the said amendment. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs
cannot come before the Civil Court and seek any such relief.
7. As regards the evidence, he would state that Exs. A1 and A2, which
were marked during trial, have been found to be not reliable piece of evidence,
and no acceptable or satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs to
establish any absolute right or customary practice. Even otherwise, the learned
counsel would contend that, in view of the amended Section 55 of the Act, the
plaintiffs have no right to claim appointment. He would further state that the
suit itself was not maintainable, as the plaintiffs ought to have approached the
Joint Commissioner under Section 63(e) of the Act. In support of his
submissions, he relied upon the decisions of this Court reported in 1) 1999 (2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
CTC 625, in the case of V.S. Lakshminarayanan Iyenger and 8 others Vs.
M.C.Arunachla Pillai and 8 others 2) reported in 2010 (4) LW 171, in the case
of K.Devarajan and other Vs. The Commissioner of HR and CE Department,
as well as the judgment in Seshammal and Others, which has also been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. Therefore, he prayed for
dismissal of the Second Appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent has stated that, in view of
the application moved during the pendency of the first appeal, it is entirely the
discretion of the Court as to whether he should be impleaded or not, and that the
attempt made by the 4th respondent himself to be impleaded during the
pendency of the first appeal was unsuccessful. Though the Executive Officer /
fit person is now sought to be impleaded by the first respondent in the Second
Appeal, I do not see how the presence of the 4th respondent would add any
value in arriving at a decision in the Second Appeal. In fact, the 4th respondent
had earlier sought impleadment during the pendency of the first appeal, and the
appellate Court dismissed the said application.
9. Insofar as the contention regarding delay is concerned, though it has
been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner / first respondent that
there can be no delay since the appointment of the fit person / Executive Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
was only after the suit was decreed, in any event, I do not find that the
Executive Officer / fit person is either a proper or necessary party to the Second
Appeal. The only issue that is required to be considered in the Second Appeal is
the applicability of Section 55 of the Act, for which the presence of the 4th
respondent is not necessary. Hence, the said CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025 is
dismissed.
10. The core issue relates to Section 55 of the Act, which is extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
55. Appointment of office-holders and servants in religious
institutions:
(1)Vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, among the office-
holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the
trustee [in all cases.]
[Explanation. - The expression "office-holders or servants" shall
include archakas and pujaries.]
(2) No person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy referred
to in sub-section (1) merely on the ground that he is next in the line of
succession to the last holder of the office.
(3)[***]
(4)Any person aggrieved by an order of the trustee under [sub-section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
(1)]may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him,
appeal against the order to [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy
Commissioner)
11. In cases where the office or service is hereditary, the person next in
the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed. However, Section 55 of the
Act was amended by Act 2 of 1971. In the case of Seshammal and Others, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the un-amended Section 55 of the Act
and, in that context, recognised customary practices and hereditary rights.
However, in the present case, admittedly, on the relevant date, the amendment
had come into force, and therefore, the present Section 55 of the Act alone can
be applied to the facts of the present case.
12. It is clear from a reading of the amended provision that the same
applies to Archagars, and no person shall be entitled to appointment to any
vacancy, whether permanent or temporary, on the ground that he is next in the
line of succession to the last holder of the office. By virtue of the amendment to
Section 55 of the Act, the rights available to a person who was claiming to be
the next in the line of succession have been wholly taken away. Therefore, it is
not open to the plaintiffs to contend that, having performed pujari rights and
also having established certain customs, they are entitled to be declared as
pujaris.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
13. In this context, the decisions that have been relied on by the learned
counsel for the first respondent, assume significance. In
V. S. Lakshminarayanan case, this Court held that, by virtue of the amended
Section 55 of the Act, the plaintiffs cannot seek a declaration recognising them
as hereditary Archagars. Similarly, in K. Devarajan’s case, this Court held that,
by Act 2 of 1971, all reference to notice of service under religious
circumstances as hereditary or otherwise has been deleted, and the amended
Section 55(2) of the Act, along with the explanation to Sub-Section 55(1) of the
Act, makes it clear that no person can claim to be entitled to be recognised or
appointed as a hereditary Archagar or pujari in a religious institution. The ratios
laid down in these cases squarely apply to the facts of the present case. I do not
see how the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Seshammal's case would
apply to the present case on the said decision as already discussed the Apex
Court was only testing the amended Section 55 of the Act.
14. The plaintiff has approached this Court seeking a declaration that
hereditary pujarships have to be recognised in view of the amendment to
Section 55 of the Act. I do not see how the plaintiff is entitled to any such relief
in the first place. The first Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the legal
position and set aside the decree of the trial Court. I do not find any infirmity or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
illegality in the well-considered findings of the first Appellate Court.
15. In fine, there is no merit in the Second Appeal. The substantial
question of law is answered against the appellant. Accordingly, this Second
Appeal is dismissed, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the
first Appellate Court. It is made clear that the dismissal of the appeal will not
prevent any person claiming a right from moving under Section 63(e) of the
Act and seeking appointment as pujari by establishing hereditary customs to the
satisfaction of the authority. Consequently, the CMP(MD).No.593 of 2025 is
closed. The CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025 is dismissed. No costs.
.04.2026
Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
trp
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Manapparai.
2. The Additionl District Munsif Court, Manappari.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI.J,
trp
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
SA(MD) No.16 of 2025 and
CMP(MD).No.16732 of 2025 and
.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
