[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Sivasubramania Bhattar vs The Commissioner on 16 March, 2026
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
WA.(MD)No.339 of 2026
and
CMP.(MD)No.3205 of 2026
Sivasubramania Bhattar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Thirunelveli.
3.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Tuticorin.
4.The Executive Officer
Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple
Thiruchendur
Tuticorin District.
5.The Chairman
Board of Trustees
Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple
Thiruchendur
Tuticorin District.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
6.Krishnamoorthy Bhattar K
S/o. Late Kalyana Appasamy Bhattar
No.29/17
Kariamanicka Perumal Koil Street
Thirunelveli - 627 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters patent, praying
to set aside the judgment dated 17.02.2026 in WP.(MD)No.16043 of
2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.J.Ashok,
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 & R5 : Mr.M.Muthugeethaiyan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16043 of 2025
dated 17.02.2026.
2.Originally, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the
order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department in R.P.No.1 of 2025/D2 . It is the case of the
appellant that his grand-father, Sankarakuthala Bhattar had 1 ¼ days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
pooja murai in the pooja turn that runs between 18th day to 20th day of
every Tamil month in the fourth respondent temple. In 1948, the said
Sankarakuthala Bhattar fell in ill and since the appellant's father was a
minor by that time, the appellant's grandfather as a stop gap arrangement
had given a leave vacancy request to permit his cognate Krishna Bhattar
to perform the pooja murai. In 1952, for some misdeeds, said Krishna
Bhattar was suspended. He had son by name Kalyana
Appaswamybhattar, who is the father of the sixth respondent. After
suspension of Krishna Bhattar in 1952, another cognate of appellant's
grandfather was doing the pooja murai. After the death of the appellant's
grandfather, the said Kalyana Appaswamybhattar filed a suit in O.S.No.
297 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam seeking
declaration that he is entitled to hereditary right to perform the pooja
murai. By a judgment and decree dated 08.12.1971, the said suit was
dismissed after holding that the appellant's father is entitled to 1 ¼ day
murai. The said judgment was implemented by the temple and the
appellant's father was doing pooja murai till 2007. One Alagammal,
W/o.Krishna Bhattar and grandmother of the sixth respondent made a
request with the temple to provide the pooja murai to her grandson, the
sixth respondent herein, which was rejected by the temple administration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
on 28.08.2007 and the same was challenged by the said Alagammal in
WP.(MD)No.7624 of 2007 and the said case was dismissed on
14.07.2009. Again, the sixth respondent had challenged the same
proceedings in WP.(MD)No.6093 of 2009 and the said writ petition was
also dismissed on 20.01.2011 with liberty to file a civil suit.
2.1.The sixth respondent had filed suit in O.S.No.47 of 2011
before the District Munsif, Tiruchendur. Later, the then temple
administration had entered into some understanding and based on the
same, the said suit was not pressed, on 23.02.2012. The temple
administration issued a proceedings dated 23.02.2012 giving 1 ¼ days
pooja murai to the sixth respondent. Aggrieved over the same, the
appellant had filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.2298 of 2012 and the
same was disposed of by an order dated 08.03.2012 relegating the
appellant to the appellate authority. Accordingly, the appellant filed
R.P.No.16/2022/D2 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department. By an order dated 16.11.2012, the
appellant was directed to file an appeal under Section 55(4) of the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act [hereinafter referred as 'the
Act']. Accordingly, the appellant filed the appeal in A.P.No.1 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
before the Joint Commissioner, Tirunelveli and by an order dated
23.01.2013 in I.A.No.1 of 2013, the Joint Commissioner granted stay.
Aggrieved by the interim order, the sixth respondent filed R.P.No.64 of
2013/D2 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and the same was dismissed with a direction to
the Joint Commissioner to dispose the appeal in A.P.No.1 of 2013.
2.2.The sixth respondent challenged the said order in WP.No.
21153 of 2013 and this Court interim stay of further proceedings in
A.P.No.1 of 2013, on 01.08.2013. The appellant was permitted to do
pooja. To that effect, proceedings came to be issued on 01.09.2013.
Aggrieved over the same, the sixth respondent has filed R.P.No.100 of
2013 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department and the same was disposed of vide order dated
12.05.2014. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant had filed a writ
petition in WP.No.24209 of 2014 and the same was dismissed on
14.10.2022, directing the appellant to approach Madurai Bench.
Thereafter, the appellant field a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.14794 of
2023 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition with certain terms.
While so, the third respondent had rejected the appeal preferred by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
appellant in A.P.No.1 of 2022 vide order dated 09.08.2023. Aggrieved
over the same, the appellant preferred a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.
21242 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 disposed of
the said writ petition directing the appellant to approach the first
respondent under Section 21 of the Act and aggrieved over the aforesaid
order, the sixth respondent preferred an appeal in WA.(MD)No.1544 of
2024 and by an interim order dated 06.11.2024, this Court issued an
interim order of Status Quo. The appellant filed a revision before the
first respondent as directed by this Court. The first respondent had
disposed of the said revision in R.P.No.1 of 2025/D2 with certain terms,
vide order dated 29.05.2025. The first respondent ordered that the
decision of the Joint Commissioner in dismissing A.P.No.1 of 2022 vide
order dated 09.08.2023 is confirmed and the decision of the Joint
Commissioner in confirming the order dated 23.02.2012 of JC/EO, in
allowing Krishnamurthy Bhattar to perform 1% day pooja murai is
rejected. It is also directed that it was open to JC/EO to fill up the
vacancies of Archagar, if any, in accordance with law. It is also open to
both the appellant and Krishnamurthy Bhattar to apply for the post of
Archagr, if they are otherwise qualified, but certainly not under
hereditary rights. The said proceedings dated 29.05.2025 came to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
challenged by the appellant in WP.(MD)No.16403 of 2025. Aggrieved
over the said order dated 29.05.2025, the said Krishnamurthy Bhattar
has also filed a writ petition in WP.(MD)No.15610 of 2025. The writ
Court, vide common order dated 17.02.2026, dismissed the both the writ
petitions. Challenging the same, the appellant/writ petitioner has
preferred the present writ appeal.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the sixth respondent's father already filed a suit against the
appellant's father and the same had ended in favour of the appellant's
father. Therefore, the question of approaching the civil Court once again
does not arise. The civil Court decree is binding on the parties and
therefore directing the parties to approach the civil Court once again does
not arise. No review under Section 114(A) of the Act would lie to the
Government as against the order passed by the Commissioner under
Section 21 of the Act. The said provision is for review of its own the
order by the Government. The Writ Court rejected the revision on the
ground that by virtue of Section 55(2) of the Act the hereditary
succession to poojariship was abolished is un-sustainable. By virtue of
1971 amendment to Section 55 of the Act, the hereditary succession to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
poojariship was abolished. The said provision was upheld by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Seshammal's case reported in 1972 (2) SCC 11. However,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2016(2) SCC 725 in
Adi Saiva Sivacharya's case held that if the agama/practise of the temple
permits pooja by succession the same is not covered by Seshammal's
case. The first respondent failed to consider that the amendment made to
the Section 55 abolishing the hereditary succession to the office holders
of the temple, is only for making fresh appointments pursuant to any
vacancy that has to be filled up. The order impugned in the writ petition
came to be passed by the first respondent, who has no authority to
interpreted as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
amendment made to Section 55 of the Act as per Tamil Nadu Amendment
2 of 1971, which was came to effect on 09.08.1971 and no opportunity of
hearing was provided to the appellant, before passing the order.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the
respondents 4 & 5 would submit that revisional authority has entire
materials on record and necessary order and has passed a reasoned order
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Religious and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
Charitable Endowments Act. The Writ Court has rightly held that if the
parties aggrieved or if they claim any independent civil right, they can
very well workout their remedy before the competent Civil Court in the
manner known to law and also given liberty to file the review under
Section 114-A of the Act. There is no infirmity in the order of the Writ
Court and there is no reason warrants to interfere.
5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the records carefully.
6.A perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition R.P.No.1
of 2025/D2 passed by the first respondent dated 29.05.2025 would go to
show that the revision petition filed under Section 21 of the Act against
the order dated 09.08.2023 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Thoothukudi in
A.P.No.1 of 2022 under Section 55(4) of the Act.
7.It is seen that the first respondent, in his order dated
29.05.2025, held that the father of the appellant was granted permission
to do 1 ¼ pooja murai vide order dated 10.01.1975 of the then Executive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
Officer, till his life time, with specific condition that hereditary rights
cannot be claimed for the same. However, the appellant was allowed and
he has continued to perform 1 ¼ day pooja murai, without any order
from the competent authority. As per the amendment made to Section 55
of the Act, the appellant is not entitled to continue to perform pooja
murai, merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to
the last holder of the office, ie., his father. Hence, the continuation of
poojamurai by the appellant is itself null and void. Similarly, it was held
that one R.Krishna Bhatter was granted permission to perform pooja
murai on 06.12.1948. Subsequently, his grandson, Krishnamurthy
Bhattar was accorded the permission to perform poojariship, vide order
dated 23.02.2012 by then JC/EO. Therefore, the said Krishnamurthu
Bhattar is continuing his poojariship again merely on the ground that he
is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office, ie., his
grandfather. Hence, the first respondent found infirmity warranting
interference in the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Joint
Commissioner/Executive Officer made in A.P.No.1 of 2022 and order
dated 23.02.2012 of the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer and
therefore, the first respondent passed the following order:-
(i) The decision of Joint Commissioner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
dismissing the A.P. 1 / 2022 vide order dated
09.08.2023 filed by Thiru. Sivasubramania Bhattar, is
hereby confirmed.
(ii) The decision of Joint Commissioner in
confirming the order dated 23.02.2012 of JC/EO, in
allowing Thiru. Krishnamurthy Bhattar to perform 14
day pooja murai, is hereby rejected.
This Revision Petition is ordered accordingly.
It is now open to the JC./EO to fill up the vacancies of
Archagar, if any, in accordance with law. It is also open
to both Thiru. Sivasubramania Bhattar and Thiru.
Krishnamurthy Bhattar to apply for the post of Archaga
if they are otherwise qualified, but certainly not under
hereditary right.
8.At this juncture, the it is relevant to refer the Section 55of the
Act, which reads as under:-
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 84[in all cases].
[Explanation.- The expression "office-holders
or servants" shall include archakas and pujaries.]
(2) No person shall be entitled to appointment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
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) xxx]
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the
trustee under [sub-section (1)] may, within one month
from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal
against the order to 89 [the Joint Commissioner or the
Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be.]
9.It is to be noted that the appellant's father, Subramania
Bhattar, was permitted to perform the poojamurai only during his
lifetime and the said permission itself specifically stipulated that no
hereditary right could be claimed. Therefore, the continuation of the
appellant in the said position, without any order of appointment from the
competent authority, cannot confer any enforceable legal right upon him.
Though the appellant sought to place reliance upon the decree passed in
O.S.No.297 of 1969 dated 08.12.1971 to contend that his father was
recognized to perform the poojamurai by holding that the appellant's
father is entitled to 1 ¼ day murai, such decree cannot override the
statutory mandate introduced by way of amendment to Section 55 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act by Tamil Nadu Act 2 of
1971, which came into force on 09.08.1971. By virtue of the said
amendment, hereditary succession to the office of Archaka or Pujari
stands abolished and no person can claim appointment merely on the
ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the
office. The said statutory position has been upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu [1972 (2) SCC
11], wherein it was held that abolition of hereditary succession to temple
offices is constitutionally valid and that appointments must be regulated
in accordance with the statutory scheme. The reliance placed by the
appellant on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adi Saiva
Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 2016 SC
209] is also misplaced, since the said judgment only recognises that
appointments must conform to the Agamas applicable to the temple and
does not revive or recognise hereditary succession as a matter of right. In
the absence of any material placed before this Court to establish that the
claim of the appellant is supported by any specific Agamic requirement,
the appellant cannot assert a right to continue the poojamurai on the basis
of lineage. Hence, the claim put forth by the appellant is un-sustainable
in law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
10.As per the amendment to the Act, cited supra, the appellant
is not entitled to continue to perform poojamurai merely on the ground
that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office, ie.,
his father and therefore, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in
the order passed by the Writ Court and there is no reason warrants
interference. There is no merits in this writ appeal and the same is liable
to be dismissed.
11.In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.]
16.03.2026
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
GNS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
To
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Thirunelveli.
3.The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Tuticorin.
4.The Executive Officer
Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple
Thiruchendur
Tuticorin District.
5.The Chairman
Board of Trustees
Arulmighu Subramania Swamy Temple
Thiruchendur
Tuticorin District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
GNS
16.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/03/2026 05:27:25 pm )
