The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret the Will of Chidambaraswamy in a manner that gives effect to the plural reference to 'trustees' and 'heirs', and the requirement for a relook at the matter for fresh appreciation of facts.

1. The order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department, first respondent herein, in A.P.No.15 of 2005-D2, dated 12.06.2008, has been called in question, seeking to quash the same and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to record/appoint the writ petitioner as a hereditary trustee of the Apparswamy Temple, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

2. The checkered history of the case would run thus :

2.1. Apparswamy Temple, Mylapore, Chennai, is a very ancient temple, hereinafter referred to as "the temple". Saint Apparswamy was buried in the said temple site at Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai, and Sivalingam was consecrated therein. Adjoining the Samadhi of Saint Apparswamy, one Chidambaraswamy constructed a madam and installed idols of Lord Vinayaka and Lord Muruga. The said Chidambaraswamy, when he was alive, was regularly performing poojas according to agamas, Hindu rites and customs. Chidambaraswamy left a Will dated 04.05.1871. In that Will, he bequeathed all his estate to Apparswamy temple and several immovable properties around the said temple in Royapettah and Mylapore besides properties in Thiruvanmiyur and Guindy, for the sole purpose of performing poojas and aradhanas in the said temple.

2.2. According to the petitioner, his great grandfather C.Rathinavelu Mudaliar, B.A., B.L. (Senior) was appointed as hereditary trustee under the Will to perform poojas and for managing the affairs of the said temple. The said Chidambaraswamy expressed his desire in that Will, stating that after the death of C.Rathinavelu Mudaliar Senior, his heirs, successors and administrators should be the trustee/trustees and they should be in possession of all the immovable properties dedicated to the said temple and all other title deeds and documents thereto with a power to deal with the properties in a manner which they think proper and appropriate. After the death of Rathinavelu Mudaliar Senior, his eldest son C.Duraivelu Mudaliar succeeded as hereditary trustee, who was a bachelor and therefore issueless and died in 1935. Thereafter, Duraivelu Mudaliar's brother C.Rathinavelu Mudaliar (Junior) became the hereditary trustee. After the demise of Rathinavelu Mudaliar Junior in 1961, his eldest son C.R.Rathinavelu Mudaliar (Second Junior), who is the father of the petitioner, should have succeeded and become the hereditary trustee, but, as he predeceased his father on 10.05.1949, one C.Bhaskar took charge of the administration of the said temple, who, later on, had relinquished all his rights and severed himself from the family by executing a release deed dated 24.06.1940. He was placed under suspension by the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Administration Department, in short, "the Department" in 1963. On such suspension, the daughter of Rathinavelu Mudaliar Junior by name Ratnangi Ammal, petitioner's aunt, was appointed as fit person temporarily.

2.3. In that situation, using Ratnangi Ammal, who was a conservative home bound woman, her son Dr.P.V. Rajkumar, third respondent herein, got into the administration of the said temple and managed to get himself recorded as hereditary trustee before the demise of Ratnangi Ammal, who died in the year 1998. While doing so, the third respondent suppressed the details of other legal heirs who are entitled to be appointed as hereditary trustees and he had been continuously acting against the interest of the said temple and committing several deeds of mal-administration. Thereafter, the elder brother of the petitioner by name C.R.Selvakumar had initiated steps to get himself appointed as hereditary trustee, but, now, he is not pursuing the matter. Since Rathinavelu Mudaliar Second Junior, father of the petitioner, predeceased Rathinavelu Mudaliar Junior, grandfather of the petitioner, father of the petitioner could not succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship, which position has gone against the Will, as it clea