P.Seethalakshmi v. The Commissioner

Order accordingly. In the meanwhile, pending decision on the show cause notices, we consider it appropriate that a Committee of the following persons shall manage the temple and trust instead of the Executive Officer:

(1) Mrs.R.Lakshmi, W/o.Mr.Raja Poosari

(2) Mr.Ponnu Pandian, S/o.Mr.Sivaji Poosari

(3) Mr.Jayaveera Pandi, S/o.Mr.V.K.Pandian

(4) Mr.Rajesh Pandi, S/o.Mr.Ramesh Poosari

(5) Mr.Rishi Pandi, S/o.Mr.Pandiarajan At this stage, Mr.Srinivasan, learned Additional Advocate General, states that a scheme has already been framed under Section 64 of the Act. However, it is obvious that the validity or otherwise of the scheme is not the subject matter of these proceedings. We decline to comment on that at this stage. We further direct that the proceedings may be completed as soon as possible preferably within a period not later than three months from today. These appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Civil appeal Nos.804-805/2020 (@SLP © Nos.28484-28485/2017) and Civil Appel Nos.811-812/2020 (@SLP (C).Nos.30698-30699/2018) Leave granted. In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No.803/2020 (@SLP(C) No.18818/2018) and connected matters, we consider it appropriate to set aside the office Memo dated 16.03.2017 regarding the plate collection. Order accordingly. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Contempt Petition (C).No.2094/2018 in Civil Appeal Nos.808-809/2020 (@SLP(C) Nos.20533-20534/2018) and Contempt Petition (C) No.434/2019 in Civil Appeal No.803/2020 (@SLP(C).No.18818/2018) In view of the order passed today in Civil Appeal No.803/2020 (@SLP(C) No.18818/2018) and connected matters, the contempt petitions are disposed of. ''

14.5.Thereafter, the order was passed by the Government by order justifying termination. Therefore, batch of statutory appeals under the Act had been filed before this Court in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024 etc., and this Court deleted some charges and remitted the matter to the Government to consider the case of the trustees after providing sufficient opportunities and the same was pending. Therefore, as on date as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the order of this court in CMA(MD).No.1038 of 2024 order of removal hereditary trusteeship was pending. As on date, there was no order of hereditary trusteeship in favour of the any of the appellants and the private respondents in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025. Their request to consider their case of hereditary trusteeship was negatived with direction to perform the Poojas in their respective turn as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.383 of 1973. Thus, it is absolutely clear that in none of the earlier proceedings, their right of hereditary Poosariship had been addressed and determined. At this point of time, the orders declining their request to continue the right of Poosariships and further continuation of Poosari beyond the age of 60 years is impugned as if it is in violation of the Rules 1964. Both issues never arose in the earlier litigation and has arisen only now and hence this Court delves into the legal issue of their entitlement to claim right of poosariship.

14.6.Firstly, Mrs.Anandhavalli, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in WA(MD).No.25 of 2025 and WA(MD).No.397 of 2025 would submit that the authority has no jurisdiction to pass order of declining their entitlement of hereditary Poosariship on the ground that they had made a claim only on the basis of the order passed under Section 54(1) of Act 22/1959. At the outset, this Court rejects the contention that the appellants are hereditary trustees entitled to the benefits under Section 54, as the same is wholly misconceived. It is further evident that none of the orders placed before this Court recognize any hereditary trusteeship under Section 54(1). e.f.vz;.8287

/ 2020 / M1 / ehs;21.12.2020

e.f.vz;.8676

/99/ M1 / ehs; 4.4.2005

e.f.vz;.7655

/ 2014 / M1 / ehs; 29.11.2014

jpUkjp.Mh;j;jp kw;Wk; jpUkjp.jdk; Mfpa ,UtUk; rl;lg;gphpT 54(i)d; fPo; jq;fis guk;giu mwq;fhtyuhf gjpT nra;a kDtpy;> NfhhpAs;shh;fs;. jw;NghJ W.P.(MD) No.5711/2020y;> Mizah; V.gp.vz;.77/2018 ehs; 22.02.2020f;F ,ilf;fhy jil gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhy; Nkw;fz;l ,uz;L egh;fshy; rl;lg;gphpT 54(i)d; fPohd kDtpid ghprPypf;f ,ayhJ. ghh;it-2y; fhZk; ,t;tYtyf Fwpg;Gfspy; kDjhuiu tprhuizf;F M[uhf Nfhhp mwptpg;G mDg;gg;gl;L tprhuiz Nkw;nfhs;sg;gl;lJ. kDjhuh; jpUkjp.tp.Mh;j;jp kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; MfpNahiu 21.12.2020 md;W ,iz Mizah; Kd;G Neub tprhuiz Nkw;nfhz;ljpy;> ,e;J thhpR chpikr; rl;lg;gb

Nyl;.tPughz;bapd;

rl;lg;gbahd

thhpRfs; jpUkjp.Mh;j;jp> jpUkjp.jdk; mk;khs; kw;Wk; tPughz;bapd; ikdh; Foe;ijfs; kl;LNk ,Ug;gjhy; VidNahh; jpU.Nyl;. tPughz;b g+i[ gyd;fis ngw ,ayhJ.

vdNt> nrd;id Mizah; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;s S.M.R.No.3/2018-D2 tof;fpw;F cl;gl;L jpUkjp.tp.Mh;j;jp vd;gth; jdJ fzth; tPughz;bf;F gjpyhf g +i[ gyd;fis ngw;Wf;nfhs;sTk; g +i[ gyd;fspy; ,Ue;J jpUkjp jdk; mk;khSf;F &.50>000/- toq;fTk; Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhapy; guk;giu mwq;fhtyh;fSf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. ghh;itapy; fhZk; fbjq;fspy; guk;giu eph;thf mwq;fhtyh; Nfl;Lf;nfhz;lgb>

Nkw;gb jpUf;Nfhtpypd;

guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; nghpazd; vd;w kfhKdp g+rhhp vd;gth; 2.2.1986y; fhykhfptpl;lijaLj;J mtUf;Fhpa

g+i[Kiw ehl;fspy; mtuJ thhpRfshd

1.jpU.gp.vk;.uh[h

g+rhhp

2.jpU.gp.vdk;.nry;yg;ghz;bad; g +rhhp>

3.jpU.gp.vdk;.nghw;if ghz;bad;

g+rhhp>

4.jpU.gp.vk;.ghz;bauh[d;>

5.jpUkjp.gp.vk;.rNuh[h

mk;kh MfpNahh; g +i[

Kiwia

ftdpj;J tUtjhy;> g+i[ Kiwf;Fhpa gq;Fj;

njhiff;fhd fhNrhiyapid

mtuth;fs; ghh;j;JtUk; g+i[ ehl;fSf;F mtuth;fSf;F

jdpj;jdpNa toq;Fk;gb eph;thf guk;giu mwq;fhtyUf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

ghh;it 2-y; tug;ngw;w jpUkjp.khyjp f/ng. P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; g+rhhp mth;fsJ kDtpy; nghUspy; fhZk; jpUf;NfhapYf;F jd;id rl;lg;gphpT 54(1)d; fPo; thhpRjhuuhf gjpT nra;a Ntz;bAk; kw;Wk; jd;Dila fzth; Nyl;.P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; g+rhhp 2001 tUlk; kiwTf;F gpwF jhd; ghh;j;J tUtjhfTk; Mdhy; g+i[Kiw gq;Fj; njhifapd; fhNrhiy jdJ fzth; Nyl;.P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; rNfhjuh; P.M.n[fjP]; ghz;bad; ngahpy; toq;fg;gl;L tUfpwJ vd;Wk; mij jdJ ngahpy; fhNrhiy toq;FkhW Ntz;bAs;shh;. mtuJ kDtpid ghprPypj;jjpy; rl;lg;gphpT 54(1) thhpR gjpT nra;a nrd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; kJiuf;fpis W.P.(MD) No. 4366 of 2009 cj;jutpd;gb thhpR gjpT nra;tjw;F ,ilf;fhy jil ,Ug;gjhy; thhpR gjpT nra;a ,ayhJ vd;w tpguk; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.

gq;Fj;njhif

toq;Ftjw;F Vw;fdNt ,t;tYtyf e.f.vz;.8676/99/M1 ehs;

04.04.2005 cj;juT %yk; jpU. P.M.nghw;if ghz;bad; gq;Fj; njhif fhNrhiy ngw;W te;Js;shh;. mNj Nghy; mtuJ kiwTf;F gpd; g+i[ Kiw ghh;j;J tUk; jpUkjpP.khyjp mth;fSf;F g+i[Kiwf;Fhpa gq;Fj; njhiff;fhd fhNrhiyapid mth; ghh;j;J tUk; g+i[ ehl;fSf;F mtUf;F jdpNa toq;Fk;gb guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; jpU.rpth[p g+rhhpf;F cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

14.7.The said orders merely grant limited permission in respect of performing Poosari duties and receiving hundi collection and do not confer or acknowledge any status of hereditary trusteeship. Rights cannot be conjured out of obscurity, nor can they rest upon undocumented assertions. Despite this position, the appellants have persisted in advancing their claim as if they got order under section 54(1) of Act, which is impermissible in law. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to accept the pleadings or assertions of the appellants seeking recognition as hereditary trustees or as holders of any hereditary Poosari rights, as no such status has ever been conferred or recognized by the competent authority. Moreover, in the background of rival claims, the competent authority lacks jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 54(1). Hence, adjudication of the department by poking its nose in the rival claim of hereditary trusteeship during the past period is against true purport of Section 54(1) (corresponding Section 57(b) of 1951 Act).The authority without considering their lack of jurisdiction to interfere with the rival claim of trusteeship entertained the application and pass order of collecting Hundi share to a particular turn who performed poojas beyond the scope of Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and paved way for number of litigations. It is well settled principle under the Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 (Corresponding Section 57(b) of the Act 1951) the authority has no jurisdiction to pass order by entertaining the disputed claim of trusteeship and the relevant precedents are as follows:

14.7.1.In the case of A.Krishnaswami Raju v. Krishna Raja, reported in 1966 SCC OnLine Mad 91 The jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57(b) is confined to a decision whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary trustee. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner can only decide as to the status of the office of the trusteeship, namely, whether it is hereditary. He is not competent to go into the further question as to which of the competing claimants is a hereditary trustee or whether both are joint hereditary trustees. That is a matter not covered by Section 57 of the Act and has to be decided only by a separate suit.

14.8.Therefore as on date without order under section Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959, they claimed shelter under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 to defend impugned orders where their right of hereditary poosariship was declined.

14.9.Further, the claim of legal heirs of the Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari on the basis of the Will is not at all maintainable under the said Act, 22 of 1959. In this aspect, it is relevant to note the following provision of the Act 1927, 1951 and 1959: 1927 1951 1959 'Hereditary trustee' means the trustee of a religious endowment, succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or by nomination by the trustee for the time being, or is otherwise regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. 'Hereditary trustee' means the trustee of a religious endowment, succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is otherwise regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. 'Hereditary trustee' means the trustee of a religious institution, succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.

14.10.From the reading of the above provisions, there is no right of nomination by the hereditary trustee. Therefore, on the basis of the Will of the Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari's legal heirs have no legal right to claim trusteeship. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the similar circumstances, in the case of D. Srinivasan v. Commr., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 548 has held as follows:

¶9The point that arises for consideration is whether the present appellant trustee has been nominated by the trustees for the time being and could be treated as "hereditary trustee" and whether the three original plaintiffs could also have been treated as "hereditary trustees" from the time when OA No. 165 of 1966 was filed by the three persons in 1966 before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶10For a proper appreciation of the above issue, it is necessary to resort to the definition of "excepted temple" in sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act and also to the definition of "hereditary trustee" in sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act. Sub-section

(5) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act reads as follows: " 'Excepted temple' means:

(a) a temple which before 1801 was, and since 1963 has continued to be, under the sole management of a trustee whose nomination did not vest in, nor was exercised by, the Government nor was subject to the confirmation of the Government or of any public officer, or

(b) a temple founded since 1842, the right of succession to the office of trustee whereof is hereditary or specially provided for by the founder." Sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act reads as follows: " 'Hereditary trustee' means the trustee of a religious endowment, succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or by nomination by the trustee for the time being, or is otherwise regulated by usage or is specially provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force.

¶11From the abovesaid definition, it will be noticed that under sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, the definition of "hereditary trustee" included a person who was nominated by the trustees, for the time being in office.

¶13Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the 1951 Act repealed the provisions of the 1927 Act. Section 5 of the 1951 Act is however to be read in conjunction with Section 103 of the said Act. We are only concerned with clauses (a) and (b) of Section 103 of the 1951 Act, which read as follows: "(a) all rules made, notifications or certificates issued, orders passed, decisions made, proceedings or action taken, schemes settled and things done by the Government, the Board or its President or by an Assistant Commissioner under the said Act, shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent, with this Act, be deemed to have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done by the appropriate authority under the corresponding provisions of this Act and shall, subject to the provisions of clause (b) must have effect accordingly: Explanation.—Certificates issued by the Board under Section 78 of the said Act shall be deemed to have been validly issued under that section, notwithstanding that the certificates were issued before the making of rules prescribing the manner of their issue.

(b) If the Government are satisfied that any such rule, notification, certificate, order, decision, proceeding, action, scheme or thing, although not inconsistent with this Act would not have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done, or would not have been made, issued, passed, taken, settled or done in the form adopted, if this Act had been in force at the time, they shall have power, by order made at any time within one year from the commencement of this Act, to cancel or to modify in such manner as may be specified in the order, the said rule, notification, certificate, order, decision, proceeding, action, scheme or thing, and thereupon, the same shall stand cancelled or modified as directed in the said order, with effect from the date on which it was made or from such later date as may be specified therein: Provided that before making any such order, the Government shall publish in the Fort St. George Gazette a notice of their intention to do so, fix a period which shall not be less than two months from the date of the publication of the notice for the persons affected by the order to show cause against the making thereof and consider their representations, if any;"

¶14A reading of Sections 5 and 103 of the 1951 Act would show that the 1927 Act was repealed, but the repeal was subject to certain conditions as stated in Section 103 of the 1951 Act. We shall come back to the effect of Section 103 on the 1927 Act a little later

¶20So far as the other plaintiffs, namely D. Adiseshayya and Y.R. Natarajan are concerned, the question would be whether they could be called "hereditary trustees" under sub-section (11) of Section 6 of the 1959 Act. That was the Act in force in 1972. The further question would be whether the appellant before us, who is D. Srinivasan and who was a person who was nominated subsequently by the remaining trustees, and which event took place after 1951, could be called "hereditary trustee".

¶21After the commencement of the 1951 Act, the definition of "hereditary trustee" contained in sub-section (9) of Section 6 of that Act did not recognise a person who was nominated by other trustees, as "hereditary trustees". Thus, so far as those trustees nominated by the said five persons after the 1951 Act are concerned, they being persons nominated by the trustees who were nominated by Venkatarangaiah's nominees, in our view, would not be "hereditary trustees" under Section 6(9) of the 1951 Act. It is true that the Board of Trustees created by Venkatarangaiah could be treated as a fluctuating body from time to time and any rights vested in that body to nominate "hereditary trustees" under sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, would remain unless taken away by the 1951 Act. The question is whether after the 1927 Act was repealed by the 1951 Act, any rights created under the 1927 Act in the Board of Trustees could continue in force and this question would depend upon the provisions of Section 103 of the 1951 Act.

¶23It is true that rights vested in any person or authority under a repealed statute are not to be deemed to be interfered with by the repealing statute, unless there is any provision in the repealing statute which expressly or by necessary implication interferes with the rights accrued to any persons or body under a repealed statute of 1927. But in our view, the language contained in clause (a) of Section 103 of the 1951 Act evinces a clear intention to depart from the scheme of the 1927 Act and no longer to call the persons nominated by the Board of "hereditary trustees", after 1951 as "hereditary trustees". In other words, if any trustees are nominated subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act, by the Board of hereditary trustees (who came into office pursuant to the will of Venkatarangaiah or their nominees) then those persons would not be governed by the definition of sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act, but will be governed by Section 6(9) of the 1951 Act. Such persons cannot be described as "hereditary trustees" inasmuch as by altering the definition of "hereditary trustees", the 1951 Act has chosen to interfere with an existing right of the Board to nominate fresh trustees as "hereditary trustees".24. We, therefore, hold that if any trustee has been nominated subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act by the Board of Trustees who were in office prior to the 1951 Act or by their nominees then such persons could not be called "hereditary trustees" within the meaning of sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1951 Act. Similarly, if the persons who were themselves not hereditary trustees after the 1951 Act, either by themselves or along with other hereditary trustees after 1951, nominated trustees, then such trustees would not be hereditary trustees. The position is no different after the 1959 Act

¶25Therefore, the other two plaintiffs in the suit, namely, D. Adiseshayya and Y.R. Natarajan and the present appellant, D. Srinivasan before us being persons who were nominated as trustees subsequent to the commencement of the 1951 Act, cannot be described as "hereditary trustees", for the purposes of the 1951 Act or the 1959 Act.26. This does not, however, mean that the right conferred on the Board of Trustees, whenever a vacancy occurs in the five places created by Venkatarangaiah, is done away with altogether by the 1951 Act or by the post-1951 Acts. It will be open to the nominated five trustees in office, from time to time to nominate fresh trustees whenever there is any vacancy in these five offices of trustees. Such persons can be trustees but cannot be called "hereditary trustees". They will have to be described as "non-hereditary trustees". What their rights are will necessarily have to be governed by the provisions of the statute. We need not go into the question as to their rights. Suffice to say that they are not "hereditary trustees".

14.11.In the case of D.Srinivasan v. Commr. [(2000) 3 SCC 548] followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of from Commr., H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) v. Vedantha Sthapna Sabha, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 497, the operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

¶14A bare reading of the definition of "hereditary trustee" brings into focus three important aspects i.e. first, a trustee of a religious institution the succession to which is devolved by hereditary right; the second category is that succession can be regulated by usage and the third category is where succession relating to the office of trustee is specifically provided for by the founder and that too so long as the scheme of such succession is in force. In contrast to the criteria engrafted in Section 6(22), the definition in Section 6(11) lays special and specific emphasis on the succession to the office of trustee of a religious institution devolving by any one of the three methods or manner envisaged therein. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the statutory authorities specially constituted under the Act have held the temple to be for all the worshipping Hindu public and not confined to the members of the Sabha only having regard to the manner in which funds were collected and the manner in which the public invitations and declarations have been made and day-to-day administration of the temple is being carried on from inception. Though there has been an application for declaration of the office of trustee of the religious institution to be a hereditary one, no application under Section 63(a) for a declaration as to whether the temple in question is a religious institution used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or section thereof was filed. Even after specific findings by the statutory authorities as to the character of the institution conspicuous omission in this regard disentitled the respondent Sabha to incidentally or vaguely project that it is for the members of the Sabha only. Once it is a religious institution within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of the Act have full force and effect and the claim of the nature, unless substantiated as provided for under the statute cannot be countenanced on certain assertions made which were besides such statutory provisions.

14.12.Therefore, in all earlier proceedings, above legal principles inadvertently escaped from the consideration of this Court and therefore, the claim of Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari's legal heirs on the basis of the Will is not legally sustainable.

15.Discussion on the claim of right of hereditary poosariship: In consequences of the above situation that no legal order of hereditary trusteeship is in favour of none of the appellants and private respondents under section 54 of act 22 of 1959, in the impugned orders before writ court, in exercise of suo motu jurisdiction as provisions of Act, passed orders impleading all concerned parties and holding that none of them are entitled to claim hereditary Poosari rights. Consequential directions were issued to the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in accordance with the said findings. Against such orders, multiple revision petitions were preferred before the Commissioner, and all such matters were clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. The said common order also came to be challenged by way of separate writ petitions.

15.1. The appellants, along with certain other individuals connected with the temple who were impleaded as respondents, raised claims concerning the alleged continuation of hereditary poosari rights and the abolition of hereditary poosari right. They contended that they were not servants of the HR&CE Department but were hereditary office holders entitled to continue in office without the limitations applicable to temple servants.

15.2.This Court impleaded all the concerned persons and heard the elaborate submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. All counsel, in one voice, submitted that the temple is essentially a village temple established around the year 1800 and that its administration was historically vested with members of a particular family.

15.3.The principal issue arising in the present batch of writ appeals is whether the appellants possess a continuing hereditary right to function as poosaris and can receive hundi collection.

15.4.The Department, invoked Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 to dispute their claim of receipt of hundi collection perpetually as hereditary poosariship. The authorities have concurrently held that neither party is entitled to claim hereditary poosari rights, in view of the amendment to Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which abolished hereditary succession. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the order was passed under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959 and therefore, Section 55 of the Act, has no application.

15.5.This Court is unable to accept the said argument for the simple reason that there was no document produced to prove that they are appointed under Section 54(1) of the Act, 22 of 1959. In fact, in this case, the appellants filed the application to appoint them as a hereditary trustees in the place of their representative. Immediately, rival claim were made and the authorities as a temporary solution had recognized only their right of receiving the hundi collection and other plate collection and sharing among themselves ie, they were allowed only to share the hundi collection and the plate collection and at no point of time, they were allowed to act as hereditary trustees. But, they were allowed to perform the poojas in the place of their respective representatives after their death. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that they are as hereditary trustees but not appointed under Section 54(1) of the Act, is misconceived. As the records shows, they were allowed only to receive the shares of plate collection and hundi collection and allowed to perform poojas. To the case in hand, Section 55 of the Act, has application. For easy reference, Section 55 of the Act is extracted below:- No person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy referred to in sun-section (1) merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office.

15.6.The constitutional validity of the above provision was tested before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Seshammal vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 1972 (2) SCC 11 upheld the same. Even as per the pleadings of the appellants, the temple is not governed by Agama and no convincing material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the temple is governed by a specific Agama mandating hereditary priesthood. In view of the above discussion, the order of the authority that they are not entitled for hereditary poosariship as per Section 55 of the Act, 22 of 1959 is valid.

15.7.In this aspect, the learned counsel for the appellants relied the following precedents and argued that the temple is a village temple and hereditary poosariship and trusteeship vested with the family and the same was legally recognized in the said precedents and therefore they requested to follow the said precedents in this case also.

(i)in the case of Babugurukkal v. The Commissioner for HR& EC reported in 1964 2 MLJ 384 and

(ii)in the case of Venkataraman vs. Thangappa Gounder reported in AIR 1972 Madras 119 (DB)

15.8. From the above reading of the said precedents, it is not clear whether the said temples are notified public temples or not? But the present temple in question is notified public temple. The said temples are small village temple without any huge hundi and plate collection. The said decisions were delivered before the amended provision of Section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and also there was no discussion about the said provision. This Court can easily distinguish the said precedents on facts and law. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel on the basis of the said precedents.

16.Discussion on application of Rule (5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964 : The other reasoning of the authority that the persons who had crossed sixty years of age are not entitled to continue the poosariship as per the Rule 5 of Rule 1964 is countered by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the said Rule has no application to the temple. All the learned Counsels appearing for the Appellants and the private respondents WA(MD).No.25 of 2025 would submit that the said Rule has no application in view of the Rule 2020 brought by the Government of Tamil Nadu. This Court perused the two Rules. It is true that Rule 2020 brought in supersession of the 1964 Rules. But, in this rules also the age for superannuation is fixed only as 60 years. Apart from that the said Rule was brought by exercising power under the Act 22/1959. Any action taken prior to the commencement of the Rule 2020 under the old Act is saved by the Saving clause provided under the Act. Only legal impediment is that any conflict between the Rule 2020 and 1964, the Rule 2020 prevails. This Court finds no conflict relating to the age limit. That apart, furthermore, the impugned orders were passed under Rules, 1964 before the commencement of Rule 2020.

16.1.The temple is notified public temple. Religious Institution as per the definition of the Act, 22 of 1959 means a temple. For better appreciation, this Court extracts Section 2(18) of the Act, 22 of 1959 hereunder: 1[(18) "Religious institution" means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes,: —

(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or

(ii) any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose. Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause-

(1) "samadhi" means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship;

(2) "brindhavan" means a place established or maintained in memory of a guru, sadhu or saint and used as a place of public religious worship, but does not include the samadhi;)

16.2.Therefore, in view of the Rule 2020, there is further clarity relating to two aspects namely in the case of notified, non-Agamic temples, the appointment of Poosaris, retirement of Poosari, taking action against the Poosari is a purely a secular and the State Authorities have statutory powers to appoint Poosari, and can superannuate the Poosaris beyond 60 years. For that the HR&CE Department is acting as an arm of the State to pass the impugned orders. More particularly, the Writ Court on appreciation of records found that there was no evidence to establish the customs or any other usage to prove their entitlement of Poosariship in the line of the succession. Therefore, the Counsel's submission that in view of the Rule 2020, the impugned order passed under the existing 1964 Rules is not valid cannot be accepted.

16.3. The learned Counsels appearing for the appellants and the private respondents made strong reliance on the proceedings of the department dated

11.10.1981 to substantiate their claim of receipt of Hundi and plate collection for performing poosariship on the basis of the following material portion of the order: I am inclined to fix one half of the income by way of Hundai (cash only) as the remuneration of the poosaries instead of the monthly salary or time scale of pay, subject to the conditions that the petitioner would be entitled, this share no long as they do their service properly, faithfully and also subject to the further condition that the expenses of paditharan like coconuts for land for archakas etc., shall be set by the personally.

16.4.From above said order, it is clear that they are treated as servants only. Therefore, there is no question of absence of the appointment under the Act as a Poosari to claim Poojariship till life and perpetual. When they are recognized and determined as a temple servant/Poosari, they are subject to the service conditions applicable to temple servants, including the age of superannuation, which is fixed as sixty years and that they cannot continue in office beyond that age, though they are receiving the Hundi collection and plate collection as poosari and therefore, for that reason, their case that the service Rules not applicable to them cannot be accepted. Further, when similar contention raised before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.424 of 1999 (Dr.S.Viswanatha Sivachariyar vs. Spl.Commissioner, HR and CE case) the Division Bench declined to accept the said contention.

16.5.The contention of the petitioners that "Poosariship" and "hereditary trusteeship" are interchangeable or co-extensive requires careful scrutiny. Even assuming, arguendo, that there is an overlap in the functional roles, the disqualification arising out of proven mismanagement in the administration of temple affairs cannot be ignored. A person who has been found unfit to manage the affairs of the temple cannot, by merely altering the nomenclature of the office claim, seek to re-enter the same institutional framework in another capacity.

16.6.In a purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, particularly in light of the abolition of hereditary rights under the amended Section 55, the emphasis is on regulated administration, accountability, and integrity in the discharge of religious services. The statutory scheme does not contemplate permitting individuals, who have been found guilty of mismanagement or maladministration, to continue in positions of controlling the temple affairs or its revenues, whether as trustees or as Poosaris, especially when such roles are intertwined with financial or administrative responsibilities.

16.7.Therefore, the claim of the petitioners, seeking recognition or continuation as Poosaris notwithstanding the adverse findings of mismanagement, is legally un-sustainable. The attempt to distinguish between capacities, while the underlying conduct remains the same, cannot be accepted. In effect, such a claim amounts to an impermissible circumvention of the consequences flowing from duly established findings of misconduct.

16.8.Accordingly, on a harmonious and purposive construction of the statutory provisions, the petitioners are dis-entitled from asserting any right to continue either as trustees or as Poosaris.

16.9.The authorities also recorded findings of persistent mismanagement in the administration of the temple. It was alleged that substantial amounts were being collected through plate collections and hundi offerings—stated to exceed one crore rupees annually—and that disputes among the rival claimants were largely centred on the division of these collections. The records indicate that the parties frequently resorted to litigation whenever disputes arose and, after reaching private settlements among themselves, flagged an issue against department for distribution of hundi and plate collections. In these circumstances, the competent authority examined the matter and concluded that the appellants, being temple servants, cannot continue in service beyond the age of sixty years. the person who had crossed 60 years are not entitled to continue in view of the above stated Rule 1964 is correct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, on several occasions, drawn a clear distinction between religious practices and secular activities associated with religion. Insofar as matters relating to essential religious practices are concerned, a person may challenge State's action on the ground of interference with such religious practice. However, where the State or statutory authorities regulate secular activities connected with the administration of a temple, such regulation cannot be questioned except on grounds available under the relevant statutory framework.

16.10.In the present case, the Department has duly considered the statutory provisions and passed the impugned order declining to recognize the petitioners as hereditary pooja recipients. In the earlier proceedings, there was no determination of either the claim of hereditary trusteeship or hereditary poosariship and termination of trusteeship on the ground of grave mismanagement by the authority was set aside by SC only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and further, in all the cases reference was made only in the context of the earlier litigations. The present claim seeking recognition of hereditary pooja rights cannot therefore be entertained.

16.11.Once the claim of hereditary trusteeship itself is found to be not maintainable, the consequential claim of hereditary pooja recipient cannot survive. The authorities, acting within their statutory powers in a secular administrative capacity, have passed the impugned order in view of the maladministration and considering the allegations relating to siphoning off Hundi collections belonging to the temple by appellants and other private respondents.

16.12.This Court finds that the authorities have rightly exercised their jurisdiction and passed the impugned order after considering all relevant aspects. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, in village temples, the offices of poosari, chief priest, and trusteeship are vested in the same person based on certain precedents cannot be accepted in the present case. Those precedents are not applicable, since the temple in question is a notified public temple and not a private village temple. Further, the temple has been duly notified by the Government, and therefore the State authorities are empowered to regulate its administration and to pass appropriate orders, either suo motu or on petitions submitted before them, in order to safeguard the temple and prevent misappropriation or siphoning off temple fund.

16.13.Accordingly, the contention of the appellants that the abolition of hereditary priesthood is inapplicable to them cannot be accepted. The orders of the authorities holding that the appellants are temple servants and subject to the statutory age of superannuation is therefore liable to be sustained. This Court finds no infirmity in the impugned orders confirmed by the writ Court where it has been held that the legal heirs of the Bodha poosari and Mahamuni poosari are not entitled to hereditary poosariship in view of Section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and prohibited from claiming a right of poosariship as a hereditary and also the person crossed the age of 60 years are not entitled as per the Rule 5 of the Rules 1964. So far as Mahamuni poosari's legal heirs on the basis of the Will dated 17.08.1985 is not legally maintainable as per Section 2(17) of Act 22 of 1959 as a hereditary trustee. In view of the above findings, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Commissioner and other authorities, which were impugned in the writ petitions and were also upheld by the learned Single Judge. Both the authorities and the learned Single Judge have examined the statutory provisions in detail and have categorically held that the abolition of hereditary priesthood applies to the temple in question .This Court finds no reason to interfere with those findings.

17.Discussion on the claim of Seethalakshmi and Maruthupandi: The said Pandian Poosari died on 12.11.2003. Thereafter, the appellant, Seethalakshmi, claiming to be the wife of the deceased Pandian poosari, submitted an application dated 28.11.2003 seeking (i) recognition as his legal heir, (ii) appointment as hereditary trustee in his place, and (iii) permission to continue as poosari in the temple. The competent authority, by order dated 04.12.2003, without adjudicating upon the issue of hereditary trusteeship or the entitlement as hereditary poosari, merely permitted Seethalakshmi to perform the pooja in the turn of the deceased Pandian poosari. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: nghUspy; fhZk; jpUf;Nfhapypy; guk;giu mwq;fhtyh;fspd; xUtuhd jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhp 12.11.2003 md;W fhykhdjhy; Vw;gl;l fhypaplj;jpy; mtuJ kidtpahd jk;ik guk;giu mwq;fhtyuhf gjpT nra;J cj;jutpLkhW ghh;itapy; fhZk; Fwpg;gpy; %yk; jpUkjp.gp.rPjhnyl;Rkp tpz;zg;gpj;Js;shh;. fhyQ;nrd;w guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhpapd; kidtp vd;gjw;fhd thhpR rhd;wpid kDjhuh; rkh;g;gpf;ftpy;iy. vdNt> chpa thhpRr;rhd;wpjOld; tpz;zg;gpf;FkhW jpUkjp.gp.rPjhnyl;Rkpf;F mwpTiufs; toq;fg;gLfpwJ.

fhyQ;nrd;w guk;giu mwq;fhtyh; jpU.gp.ghz;bad; g+rhhpapd; g+rhhp Kiwia vjph;tUk; tuj;jpw;F kl;Lk; ghh;j;Jtu kDjhuUf;F mDkjp toq;fg;gLfpwJ. gq;Fj;njhiff;F

jdpahf

tpz;zg;gpj;J

cj;juT

ngw;Wnfhs;SkhWk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ

17.1.The said order was challenged by the minor Marudhupandi in A.P. No.19 of 2003, contending that he was the adopted son of the deceased Pandian poosari and, therefore, entitled to succeed to the position. He also disputed the marital status of Seethalakshmi. The said application came to be dismissed by order dated

06.05.2004. Aggrieved thereby, Marudhupandi filed W.P. No.1428 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by interim arrangement, permitted Seethalakshmi to perform the poojas and directed both parties to share the pooja receipts without dispute. Challenging the said order, Seethalakshmi filed W.A.No.1590 of 2011, and Marudhupandi filed W.A. No.1995 of 2011. The writ appeal filed by Seethalakshmi was allowed, and the claim of Marudhupandi was rejected, granting liberty to him to approach the competent civil court for declaration of his status as the adopted son of the deceased Pandian poojari. Pursuant thereto, Marudhupandi instituted O.S.No.92 of 2013 before the Subordinate Court, Melur, seeking declaration of his status as adopted son and consequential rights over hereditary trusteeship and pooja receipts. Though the suit was decreed, the same was carried in appeal by Seethalakshmi in A.S.No.62 of 2019, which came to be allowed. The matter is stated to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein notice has been ordered, but no interim stay has been granted.

17.2.In the above backdrop, a serious dispute persists between Seethalakshmi and Marudupandi, each making rival allegations. Marudupandi contends that Seethalakshmi's marital status is doubtful, alleging that she was involved in proceedings under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and that no valid marriage was performed. On the other hand, Seethalakshmi disputes the claim of adoption, contending that the same has not been legally established, a position which also finds support in the appellate court's findings. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the claim of Marudhupandi as an adopted son remains sub judice and hence, he is not entitled to make any claim. Since the department by applying Rule 5 of 1964 Rules passed the order prohibiting Seethalakshmi to continue as poosari beyond the age of superannuation, namely, 60 years, she is also not entitled to make any claim.

17.3.In view of the foregoing reasons, both parties are embroiled in substantial factual and legal disputes, accompanied by serious allegations against each other. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to recognise or confer rights upon either party at this stage, independent of the findings already rendered by the competent authorities.

17.4.Furthermore, the authorities have concurrently held that neither party is entitled to claim hereditary poosari rights, in view of the amendment to Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which abolishes hereditary succession. Additionally, insofar as Seethalakshmi is concerned, she has admittedly attained the age of superannuation as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Religious Servants Rules, 1964, thereby dis-entitling her from continuing in service.

17.5.It is, however, open to Marudupandi to work out his remedies before the competent authorities, subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the event his claim of adoption is ultimately upheld, it would be open to him to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, including consideration of any claim relating to poosari service or trusteeship, strictly in conformity with the statutory framework.

18.Discussion on the claim of Dhanam, Veerapandi and Pandeeswari: Dhanam is the Fifth Wife of Mahamuni poosari. She has two sons, namely, Pandiarajan and Veerapandi and one daughter, namely, Pandeeswari. Veerapandi submitted a representation dated 18.09.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, seeking recognition and grant of share in the poosari receipts. By order dated 28.09.2014, the Deputy Commissioner declined to recognise Veerapandi as a legal heir of Mahamuni Poosari through Dhanam. Nevertheless, the authority proceeded to hold that Veerapandi was entitled to a share and issued consequential directions to the trustee, Shivaji Poosari, to disburse such share. The said order was subsequently taken up as suo motu revision in S.M.R. No. 3 of 2018. In the course of the said proceedings, a categorical finding was rendered that Veerapandi is not entitled to any share. During the pendency of the proceedings, Veerapandi died, and Dhanam (described as Aarthi) was impleaded as her legal heir. Likewise, upon the death of Pandiarajan, his legal heirs, namely Pandiswari and another Pandiarajan, were also brought on record. All other necessary legal heirs were duly impleaded in the proceedings. Ultimately, by order dated 19.01.2023 passed in S.M.R.No.3 of 2018, the authority declined the claims of all parties and held that none of them are entitled to any poosari receipts, thereby effectively nullifying the earlier order dated 28.09.2014. The said order was challenged before this Court by way of writ proceedings, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. In such circumstances, the present claim made by the legal heirs of Pandiarajan and Veerapandi, seeking entitlement to poosari receipts on the basis of hereditary succession, is legally untenable. The impugned orders passed by the authorities are in consonance with the amended provisions of Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which abolished hereditary rights in such offices. Further, it is pertinent to note that the claim of Veerapandi was never recognized at any point of time prior to the filing of the representation in the year 2014. In the absence of any established or recognized right, no enforceable claim can be sustained.

19.Discussion on the claim of Valli:

19.1.Valli wife of Sangan poosari after sending a consent letter dated

17.03.1997 to record "Karthik (allegedly adopted son)" as a hereditary trustee-cum-poosari under the branch of Sangan poosari, had obtained the order on 06.01.2014 in her favour from the department to perform the poojas turn of Sangan poosari but it was rejected by the writ Court on the ground that she made a belated claim and there is no permanent vacancy and Karthik was already appointed as a hereditary trustee and the similar belated claim made by the other branch namely, A.Pandiammal against P.Sivaji poosari was declined by the Division Bench in the case of A.Pandiammal V. P.Sivaji poosari reported in 2012 SCC Online Mad 2424 and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of Superme Court and the writ Court considering the same, dismissed her claim by setting aside the order of the department dated 06.01.2014 passed in favour of Valli. So far as Karthik is concerned, he was not only suspended on the ground of the misappropriation and also involved in the assault upon the sister, namely, Sumathi, inside the temple premises and also caused injuries to the HR and CE departmental officials also. Therefore, both Karthik and Valli are not entitled to get any relief.

20.Discussion on the question of the excepted temple and consequential direction of the writ Court to the authority to take action In the year 1935, as stated above, the department passed the order and declared that the temple is exempted one as per the provision of the Act –1927. Now, there is no question of exemption under the New Act. The said question was elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.Srinivasan v.Commr. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 548] and the relevant paragraph is as follows:

¶10For a proper appreciation of the above issue, it is necessary to resort to the definition of "excepted temple" in sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act and also to the definition of "hereditary trustee" in sub-section (6) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 of the 1927 Act reads as follows: " 'Excepted temple' means:

(a) a temple which before 1801 was, and since 1863 has continued to be, under the sole management of a trustee whose nomination did not vest in, nor was exercised by, the Government nor was subject to the confirmation of the Government or of any public officer, or

(b) a temple founded since 1842, the right of succession to the office of trustee whereof is hereditary or specially provided for by the founder."

12.The 1951 Act did not recognise the plea of "excepted temple", which was a particular class of temple, for which provision was made only under the 1927 Act.

20.1.Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the authority has no power in the case of excepted temple as per the order passed in the year 1935 by the Board deserves to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, in view of the principles governing temple administration under statue.

21.Recalibration in Light of Changed Circumstances: The central issue is whether the poosaris' entitlement to 50% of the hundial collection, as granted in O.A.No.77 of 1980, can be sustained in the light of vastly changed financial and standard of living circumstances or for performing poojas with devotion and doing secular duty with self conscience and self discipline and discharging function for the welfare of temple.

21.1. It is relevant to note that At the time when the application was filed in O.A.No.77 of 1980 under section 63 of Act 26 of 1959, the temple was impoverished, its annual income was barely Rs.25,000/- and the plate collection meagre i.e., its income was meagre and offerings sparse and insufficient even for the livelihood of the poosaris and there fore grant of 50% of the hundial collection to the poosaris was intended as a remuneration to the poosari in lieu of a regular salary or time-scale pay so as to enable them to meet their basic livelihood expenses and maintain a reasonable level of dignity while discharging their religious duties , and was subject to the condition that they should faithfully perform the temple services and personally bear certain expenses relating to pooja materials. The grant of 50% of the hundial collection to poosaris was not a privilege but a measure of necessity, intended to serve as a substitute for regular salary or time-scale pay. The allocation was conditioned upon faithful performance of temple services and personal responsibility for certain expenses related to pooja materials.

21.2.After the above order in the year, time has transformed the terrain and has wrought a remarkable transformation and an unrelenting sculptor of circumstances. Today, the temple pulses with the devotion of nearly a very large number of devotees every week. As found by the authorities and as judicially noticed by this Court, the temple is situated within about two kilometres from this Court and draws a very large number of devotees, particularly on Fridays and Tuesdays and during weekends. The materials placed before this Court, including the findings recorded by the authorities as well as the courts below, reveal that the temple presently attracts a very large number of devotees and generates substantial income and the annual plate collection alone exceeds Rs.1 crore and hundle collection of more than 4 crores and Devotees themselves contribute the majority of pooja materials, reducing the personal financial burden of the poosaris as most of the pooja materials and offerings are contributed directly by the devotees for paditharam and the institution has become financially robust .

21.3.In fact, the records disclose that the annual plate collection alone exceeds Rs.1 crore, and on certain occasions the plate collection even exceeds the hundi collection. The learned Judge also extracted the income during the period of fit person.

21.4.The details of the approximate income during the period of fit person as extracted by the Writ Court in paragraph No.39 is as follows:

39.Be that as it may, after the suspension of the Trustees, the Temple was under the administration of the Department, through Fit Person/Executive Officer, for a period of 2 ¾ years. The Commissioner, HR CE, in the counter affidavit has filed a comparison chart as under:- I. Comparison of Important Income Heads (For Fasli 1423, 1424 and to that of Fasli 1426, 1427) S.N o. Important Heads of Income Income during the period of Hereditary Trustees Administration Income during the period of Official Fit Person and the Executive Officer Administration Fasli1423 Rs. Fasli1424 Rs. Fasli1426 Rs. Fasli1427 Rs. General Hundial 91,95,719 84,11,666 1,80,64,549 1,84,48,095 Plate Collection Hundial NIL NIL 25,04,440 1,07,59,022 Annadhanam Hundial (FinancialYear) 2,77,537 3,49,990 13,23,249 13,00,837 Thiruppani Hundial NIL NIL 4,40,156 15,44,361 Tickets

i) Coconutand Fruit

ii) Milk Abhishekam

iii) RoseWater Abhishekam

iv) Large Garland

v) HairTonsure Ticket

vi) Sandal Abhishekam

vii) Vibuthi Abhishekam

viii) Quick Dharshan NIL NIL 67,62,931 1,13,44,910 DonatedArticles NIL NIL 1,27,995 3,53,510 LeaseRights I) TonsuredHair Auction

ii) EarBoring Auction

iii) GheeLamp sales

iv) Coconut

v) Goat, Hen, Cock Collection

vi) ChildCradle Collection

vii) Fire Wood PiecesCollection NIL NIL 25,02,714 45,74,795 Cash Donation 8,206 22,001 44,923 1,06,208 Foreign Currency NIL NIL NIL 2,00,259

Total 94,81,462 87,83,657 3,17,70,957 4,86,31,997 Gold

20.250gram

30.600gram

241.500 gram

416.000 gram Silver

317.00gram

245.00gram

856.500 gram 1768.000 gram

Total

337.250 gram

275.600 gram 1,098.000 gram 2,184.000 gram FixedDeposit (Investment) 2,18,76,912 (Forabout85Years) 7,30,18,960 (For2¾Years) II. Specific Income Comparison Head of Incomes and the income derived from therein which are existing both in the period of Hereditary Trustees and in the period of official Fit Person S.N o. Head of Income Income derived before Fit Person took charge of the temple (Hereditary Trustees period) Income derived after Fit Person took charge of the temple Period Amount Rs. Period Amount Rs. General Hundial Income (Excluding Annadhana Hundial) Fasli1418 to 1425 (Upto

06.03.2016) for7¾ years 3,79,04,973 From

07.03.2016 to 31.12.2018 for2¾ years 5,15,62,252 Annadhana Hundial alone 2008-2009 to 2015-2016 8 years 14,73,547 2016-2017, 2017-2018,

01.04.2018 to 31.12.2018 2¾ years 37,77,621 Jewel Items– Gold Fasli1401

(1992)to

25.05.2015 (22years and 5 months)

118.750 grams In2¾years

890.500 grams Jewel Items– Silver Fasli1401

(1992)to

03.08.2015 (22years and 8 months) 1158grams In2¾years 3699 grams Fixed Deposits In85years 2,18,76,912 In2¾years 7,30,18,960

III. Head of Incomes which are introduced only in the period of official Fit Person and the Income derived for the past 2 ¾ year S.No. HeadofIncome Fasli1426 Income Rs. Fasli1427 Income Rs. Fasli1428 Income Rs. Total Income underthis Head Rs. Tonsuring of Human Hair 19,00,000 29,50,109 35,90,099 84,40,208 ArchanaiTicket (Milk Abishegam, Rosewater Abishegametc.) 67,62,931 1,13,44,910 61,02,290 (01.07.2018 to

31.12.2018) 2,42,10,131 EarBoring Auction 53,000 65,000 77,500 1,95,500 Coconut 71,000 73,000 85,500 2,29,500 Goat,Hen,Cock Collection 57,714 3,46,286 6,85,000 10,89,000 Ghee LampSales 4,21,000 10,98,900 NIL 15,19,900 ChildCradle NIL 41,500 (introduced first time) 45,700 87,200 FireWoodPieces Collection NIL NIL 6,500 (introduced first time) 6,500 Sale of Kanikkai Articles such as BrassLampsetc., offered by devotees 1,27,995 3,53,510 3,47,521 (01.07.2018 to

31.12.2018) 8,29,026 ** Plate Collection Hundial 25,04,400 (10.03.2017 to

30.06.2017) 1,07,59,022 (01.07.2017 to

30.06.2018) 55,95,268 (01.07.2018 to

31.12.2018) 1,88,58,730 Tiruppani Hundial 4,40,156 15,44,361 6,13,970 25,98,487 ** During the period of Hereditary Trustees, the Plate Collection amount was not accounted into the temple income for the past 85 years upto Fasli 1425. During the period of Fit Person, the said income is brought into the temple account. IV. Overall Income of the Temple derived before Fit Person took charge of the Temple (Hereditary Trustees period) and after Fit Person took charge of the Temple S.No. Income derived before Fit Person took charge of the temple (Hereditary Trustees period) Income derived after Fit Person took charge of the temple Period Amount Rs. Period Amount Rs. FromFasli1403– 1425 (Upto07.03.2016) 22¾years 6,28,96,421 In 2 ¾ years (From

08.03.2016to

31.12.2018) 11,26,93,572

V. Receipt of Foreign Currency Value during the period of Fit person In the Fasli 1428, during the period of Fit Person, the Foreign Currency was received to the value of Rs.2,00,259/-.

21.5.The said figures are supported by the data compiled by the authorities, including the materials obtained through CCTV monitoring and other supervisory mechanisms. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of Writ Court to issue the following direction to the authority:

¶60As per the practice in vogue, the two branches of Pandiyan @ Botha poosari [5 pax] and Periyannan @ Mahamuni poosari [5 pax] are having regular pooja turn alternatively for ten weeks, apart from the chithirai festival turn. As per this arrangement, there should be 10 poosaries and if a poosari is having the 1st turn of regular pooja, his next turn would come, after ten weeks, in the 11th turn. However, there are litigations regarding the claim of poosariship and the consequent sharing of Hundi income. On a closer look, it appears that roughly a sum of Rs.6.3 Crore was paid as poosaris' share alone for the past ten years. This huge income appears to be paving way for the litigations. Most of the writ petitions before this Court are filed claiming right in the hereditaryship and poosariship, as such they will be getting some share from the Hundi collections. In fact, the Department has furnished a list of 147 cases instituted by the persons claiming to be Trustees in relation to this Temple and they are contesting these cases by engaging Senior Counsels. Most of these cases relate to Hundi share alone. On the other hand, it is a very sorry state of affairs that even though the devotees are offering this much of donations to the deity, neither the Department nor the Trustees have made any developments in and around the Temple. Ultimately, the deity has been left in lurch.

¶61It appears that this Court, in yet another proceedings in W.P.No.13 of 1993, dated 30.09.1999, while dealing with a suo-motu revision raised by the Commissioner regarding the very same issue of sharing the Hundi income, has observed as follows:- "19. In fine, the Commissioner is entitled to proceed with the impugned suo-motu proceedings (i) as and when the interest of the public relating to the affairs of the respective temple requires such action; (ii) the conditions imposed in the order dated 08.05.1981 are violated; and (iii) any change of circumstances in the affairs of temple requires the revisional authorities, to reopen the matter. ..."

¶62Notwithstanding the rise in the Temple's Hundai income from then to now, this Court is of the view that, given the number of litigations owing to this much of share amount and the misappropriation as well as maladministration, which led to the action initiated by the Department, this change in circumstances in the affairs of the Temple requires the revisional authority to reopen the matter, as per the above order dated 30.09.1999. Moreover, this Court, in A.S.No.801 of 2002, dated 02.11.2018, has also held that the Joint Commissioner can revise the percentage of the share from the Hundai income for the poosaries / Trustees taking into consideration of all factors, like, the increase in Hundai income, the rise in cost of living, the rising cost of paditharam expenses and the rights of the Hereditary Trustees / poosaries to lead a life with dignity.

¶64Therefore, this Court directs the Commissioner, HR CE, to take further action in this regard and this issue is answered accordingly.

21.6.The learned Judge has also displayed a commendable picture about the changing economic realities of the institution. The temple, which once functioned within modest revenue at the time of O.A.No.77 of 1980, now commands substantial revenues running into crores through plate and hundi collections. Time, however, is an unrelenting sculptor of circumstances. Today, the temple is thronged by nearly thousands of devotees per day. Plate collections alone exceed Rs.1 crore annually Orders justified by necessity in 1980 cannot be assumed to carry forward unchanged into the present, particularly where circumstances have significantly altered. The earlier order must be confined to its factual context and cannot be treated as a perpetual entitlement. Judicial allocations must be assessed in their contextual and temporal framework judicial orders are products of their factual and temporal context. The earlier arrangement must therefore be confined to the circumstances in which it arose and cannot be treated as a perpetual entitlement. The Court notes the extraordinary factual matrix: the temple attracts large congregations, devotees provide most pooja materials, and plate collections have overflow the hundi itself. Continuation of the prior arrangement would lead to unjust enrichment, rewarding necessity's palliative with undeserved surplus. Therefore, What was once sustenance in times of meagre income is now appropriately measured against the temple's robust present-day resources and cannot not allowed as a vehicle of unjust enrichment and cannot be sanctified by custom in an era of abundance. It is well settled jurisprudence principles that Law without conscience undermines justice; justice without context is a cloak without warmth and Justice is not frozen in time; it is a living principle . In the extraordinary circumstances now revealed, it is both just and necessary to recalibrate the earlier order in O.A.No.77 of 1980, where Poojaris share in the hundial collection fixed as 50% as directed in A.S.No.801 of 2002, dated

02.11.2018 considering huge plate collection. This court also reminder of following social transformation principle: "Since social justice is part of the scheme of justice itself, such special measures shall neither to be disproportionate nor arbitrary. Borne in necessity, its scope ought to be remitted by necessity itself".

21.7.Accordingly, the learned Judge has correctly directed the Commissioner to look into the issue and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the order under challenge. On the contrary, to interfere would be to condone a continuing wrong. It is also permissible to pass extraordinary remedy upon consideration of extraordinary circumstances as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 10. This Court, therefore, finds no infirmity in the reasoning or the directions of the learned Judge

22.Discussion on the submission of mediation: During the course of the hearing, an additional contention was advanced that the matter had been referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and that the resultant report was not taken into consideration by the Writ Court. The said submission is liable to be rejected at the threshold. The core issue for determination is whether the parties to the mediation proceedings—namely, the private parties and the rival claimants to the Poosariship and the collection of offerings—are legally entitled to any relief. The dispute arises from the order passed by the competent authorities, wherein it has been categorically held that none of the parties are entitled to any relief under section 55 of the Act 22 of 1959 and Rules, 1964. The appellants never arrived at any settlement. In such circumstances, any arrangement, settlement, or consensus arrived at inter se between the parties in the course of mediation cannot, in any manner, affect or override the statutory determination rendered by the authorities. Accordingly, the mediation proceedings between the rival parties are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication, particularly when both parties stand disqualified from claiming any relief under the governing statutory framework. Therefore, from every perspective—both on facts and in law—the claim of the appellants is not legally maintainable.

23.Conclusion and suggestion: It is a matter of deep-rooted religious belief among the devotees that "the presiding deity of Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple'' shortly called ''Pandi Muni'' safeguarding the city of Madurai. Therefore, the shrine of Pandi Muni, revered as the sentinel spirit of Madurai, draws to its sacred precincts a ceaseless tide of faith—an ocean of devotees whose numbers swell beyond arithmetical measure. Faith, when it flows in such abundance, brings with it offerings in profusion, The hundials overflow, the plates are laden, and the coffers ring with the currency of devotion. The hereditary Poosaris(priests), instead of depositing the said collections to the credit of the temple, have misappropriated the same for their personal gain. Therefore where wealth gathers, the shadow of mismanagement lurks close behind. Consequently, litigations are spontaneously increasing upon making rival claim one after other to the extent of making throat cutting allegation against each other.

23.1. Hundi collection is not the fiefdoms of a poosari and is resource held in trust for the community of worshippers and also impressed with a public character. Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (3 Judges Bench) reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 422], has held that poosaris are not entitled to share in monies deposited in the hundis as matter of right. Merely because some monies were directed to be paid to meet their livelihood for their service of poosariship in lieu of remuneration in the year by taking account of that perion income as necessity will not confer any right on the poosaris to get any lion's share in the line of succession as if the said hundis collection is their family property. To invoke antiquated orders of a bygone era as a licence for present impropriety is to mock the march of justice. Hence, any attempt to divert these resources for personal aggrandisement is a betrayal of the very faith that sustains the institution. This court also finds no material to presume that the poosaris have done any welfare activities but have only spent for their lavish expenditure and litigating expenditure. Learned judge also on assessment of record has held that number of persons without doing poojas have been receiving amount. Fighting for share in hundi collection as their family property's accrued income shocks judicial conscience of this court. More particularly on the account of judicial notice of the prevailing condition of temples across the State of Tamil Nadu, where several temples are in a dilapidated condition due to lack of adequate funds. In many instances, financial condition to perform even a single daily pooja is not viable and where numerous temples struggle for basic maintenance and for the conduct of daily poojas due to lack of funds. The stark contrast between such institutions and the present temple, which enjoys substantial and increasing income, underscores the need for equitable and responsible financial management.

23.2.Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Committee has been constituted, and the administration of the temple presently vests with the said Committee. Further, this Court, in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024, reconstituted the Committee and directed the Government to conclude revisions which are pending before the secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department wherein an enquiry be conducted into the allegations levelled for grave charges against the so-called hereditary trustees who had already been removed from the post of the hereditary trusteeship.

23.3.A perusal of the proceedings in A.S.No.1 of 1925, O.A.No.459 of 1933, and WA.No.487 of 1969, along with the present litigations and the grave charges pending consideration before Government, demonstrates that substantial and consistent material has been produced by the competent authorities establishing continuous mismanagement. Therefore, this Court considering the maladministration in the year 1925 onwards even during the period of Valliammal and the amount of both plate collection and Hundi collection and other emoluments are more than crores, Rival claims were made by two groups, namely Pandiyan Poosari group and Periyannan Poosari group, each asserting entitlement over temple rights by initiating more than 130 litigations and certain individuals asserting themselves to be representatives of elderly poosaris or hereditary trustees was also found not to be supported by any legal entitlement or documentary proof and that too, without performing regular poosaris or undertaking any developmental activities for the benefit of the temple and also there was assault on the officers by the rival claimants inside the temple premises and to safe guard the huge amount of devotees to be spent for the welfare of the temple in near future,to cleanse the sanctum of all that sullies its sanctity, it becomes imperative for the Government to intervene in exercise of its statutory powers, this Court deems it proper to suggest to the Government to take the temple under its control by invoking the various provision of the Act, 22 of 1959 when such power has been recognized by constitution of india and also under statute as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1, and in other authoritative pronouncements.

23.4.As per the Rules of 2020 presently in force, the Department is vested with the authority to initiate the process for appointment of a Poosari. In the event such a process is undertaken, it is open to any of the legal heirs of Valiyammal to submit their application for the said post and In the event of any application being submitted by the legal heirs of Valliammai, the Department shall accord preference to such applicants who possess no adverse antecedents and who have not been involved in any act of mismanagement.

23.5.A further perusal of the records reveals a significant and disquieting aspect, namely that the matter has been listed before different jurisdictional Judges at various stages. This has resulted in material facts not being fully and consistently disclosed before each forum, leading to suppression of relevant particulars and, consequently, diversion or dilution of earlier orders have been passed by this Court. It is also evident that, upon obtaining interim orders, the parties have, in several instances, chosen not to prosecute the proceedings to their logical conclusion, instead, they have settled matters inter se and continued to appropriate the hundi collections of the temple, despite having no lawful authority or recognized right over its administration. Such conduct clearly demonstrates a pattern of abuse of the judicial process and unauthorized siphoning off temple funds. In view of these special circumstances, and having regard to the paramount interest of safeguarding the temple and its properties, this Court considers it appropriate, as a special measure, to direct that the Registry place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Hon'ble Chief Justice may consider designating and assigning all matters pertaining to Arulmigu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple pending this bench so as to ensure consistency in adjudication. Such a course would effectively prevent multiplicity of proceedings before different Benches of this Court and the civil courts, avoid conflicting orders, and ensure that all related issues are comprehensively addressed in a coordinated manner.

24.Accordingly, all the writ appeal are dismissed with the following directions:

(i)No person including the appellants in these writ appeals and the other private respondents in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025 are entitled to claim right of hereditary poosari of the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai.

(ii)The direction of writ Court at paragraph No.64 in the impugned judgment and the reasoning in paragraph Nos.60 to 62 is hereby affirmed. Therefore, the Commissioner of HR & CE Department, shall take necessary action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii)This Court also directs the Government to pass the orders in the proceedings pending before the Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department/first respondent as per W.A.(MD).No.397 of 2026, relating to the removal of the trustees of the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per the direction issued in C.M.A.(MD).No.1038 of 2024.

(iv)This Court also suggests to the Government, namely, secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department/first respondent in W.A.(MD).No.397 of 2026 to take over the administration of the temple under its absolute control after following the due process of law.

25.Accordingly, the writ appeals are devoid of merits and stand dismissed with the above directions and the suggestion. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.

[Dr.G.J., J.] & [K.K.R.K., J.]

02.04.2026

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No To

1.The Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment (RE3.1) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Madurai.

5.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai.

6.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer, A/m. Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai.

7.Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Thirukovil, Represented by its Managing Trustee, Melamadai, Madurai.

8.The Board of Trustees Arulmighu Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai-625 020, Through its Managing Trustee Ponnu Pandian. oDRo.oG.oJAYACHANDRANoo,oJo. AND K.K.oRAMAKRISHNAN,oJ. sbn W.A(MD)Nos.25,o396,o397,o398oando399oofo2025oando198,o199,o209oando210oofo2026 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2130,o2131,o2211,o2212,o3148,o3149,3151,191oando192oofo2025

02.04.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 19.02.2026 Pronounced On : 02.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN W.A(MD)Nos.25, 396, 397, 398 and 399 of 2025 and 198, 199, 209 and 210 of 2026 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2130, 2131, 2211, 2212, 3148, 3149,3151,191 and 192 of 2025 W.A(MD)No.25 of 2025 P.Seethalakshmi Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer, A/m. Pandimuneeswarar Temple, Melamadai, Madurai. 4.R.Lakshmi 5.Ponnupandian 6.P.Jal Veerapandi 7.R.Rajesh Pandi 8.Rishi Pandi Respondents 9.Maruthapandi (R9 is impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 05.12.2025 in C.M.P(MD)No. 786 of 2025) 10.P.Manikandan poojari 11.K.Ponnan poojari 12.R.Rebello poojari (R10 to R12 are impleaded as per the order of this Court in C.M.P(MD)No.16681 of 2025) 13.P.Sivaji 14.S.Karthick 15.V.K.Pandian 16.P.Veeramalai 17.T.Sankar 18.N.Valli 19.R.Anusankari 20.R.Priya 21.P.M.Chellapandi poojari 22.P.M.Pandiyarajan poojari 23.P.M.Jegadesh Pandian 24.R.Saravana Pandian 25.V.Aarthi 26.P.Malathi Respondents (R13 to R26 are impleaded as per the order of this Court dated 19.02.2026 made in C.M.P(MD) No.366 of 2026) Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.8184 of 2022. For Appellant : M/s.J.Anandhavalli For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For R4 & 8 : M/s.J.R.Annie Abinaya For R7 : M/s.A.V.Arun for Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar For R9 : Mr.S.Bageerathan For 10 to 12: Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s.D.Deepamathi For R3, 5 & 6 : No appearance W.A(MD)No.198 of 2026 Dhanam Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Madurai. 3.Aarthi.V 4.Pandeeswari 5.Pandiyarajan.P.M 6.Ponnu Pandian 7.Lakshmi.R 8.Jayaveerapandi 9.Rishi Pandi 10.Rajesh Pandi Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.6114 of 2024. For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.V.Arun for M/s.S.M.Arun Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s.D.Deepamathi W.A(MD)No.199 of 2026 Dhanam Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Madurai. 3.Aarthi.V 4.Pandeeswari 5.Pandiyarajan.P.M 6.Ponnu Pandian 7.Lakshmi.R 8.Jayaveerapandi 9.Rishi Pandi 10.Rajesh Pandi Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by this Court dated 10.12.2024 in WP(MD). No.6113 of 2024. For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.V.Arun for M/s.S.M.Arun Kumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s.D.Deepamathi W.A(MD)No.209 of 2026 P.Pandeeswari Appellant Vs 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration Department, Madurai. 3.P.M.Veerapandi 4.Mrs.Dhanam 5.Aarthi.V 6.Pandiyarajan.P.M 7.Ponnupandian 8.Lakshmi.R 9.Jayaveerapandi 10.Rishi Pandi 11.Rajesh Pandi Respondents