The main legal point established is that a valid Settlement Deed, along with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and relevant case law on testamentary disposition, can override the claims of legal heirs in matters of hereditary trusteeship and Poojari rights.

1. The Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.11248/2003/A1 dated 04.12.2003 as confirmed by the order of the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No.AP.No.19/2003/D2 dated 06.05.2004 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable.

2. The issue relates to the right to perform hereditary trusteeship and Poojari rights in the Arulmighu Pandi Muniswarar Temple situated at Melamadai Village in Madurai North Taluk. The Management of the affairs of the Temple is governed by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board’s order in B.O.No.2074.1935. In view of the Board’s order a group of five hereditary trustees are managing the affairs of the Temple. One among the five hereditary trustees is the Petitioner’s father. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:

(i) The Petitioner is the adopted son of one late Pandian Poojari who was a Joint Hereditary Trustee and Poojari for the Arulmighu Pandi Muniswarar Temple. The said late Pandian Poojari had executed a Settlement Deed on 20.10.2003 laying the line of succession and nomination to his hereditary rights and other pre-requisites available to him in favour of the Petitioner. As per the Settlement Deed, the natural father has to manage and receive the rights of the said Temple till the Petitioner attains the age of majority and has to render accounts to the Petitioner for the income realized by him during the period of minority of the Petitioner and has to pay the First Respondent/wife of the Petitioner’s father a sum of `10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from the proceeds of the said Temple. The Settlement Deed came into effect after the death of the Pandian Poojari on 12.11.2003 and the Petitioner filed an Application before the Second Respondent on 28.11.2003 for recognition of his rights in the above Temple wherein the Second Respondent directed the Petitioner to go to the Civil Court for recognition of his rights, when the right available to the successor-in-interest of a hereditary trustee in the Temple is automatic.

(ii) The First Respondent also filed an Application before the Second Respondent for, recognition of her rights contending that she is the wife of the said Pandian Poojari and Second Respondent on entertaining her Application passed an order dated 04.12.2003, permitting her to perform the Poojari rights in the Temple for a period of one week. According to the Petitioner, the First Respondent is not a legally wedded wife to Pandian Poojari as one Anandhavalli was the wife of Pandian Poojari who died on 19.05.1996 and the Will dated 25.08.2003 produced by the First Respondent is non-est in law. Hence, aggrieved by the order passed by the Second Respondent, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Third Respondent who in turn dismissed the Appeal by an order dated 04.12.2008. It is against this order, the Petitioner has moved this Court by filing the Writ Petition.

(iii) Pending the Writ Petition, in W.P.M.P. No.16892 of 2004 this Court granted stay on 19.05.2004 and the same was made absolute on 08.07.2004 and the Vacate Stay Petition filed by the First Respondent was dismissed as the validity of the Settlement Deed is outside the scope of power of the Commissioner and also for the reason that he is empowered to decide the issue only on the basis of the right conferred under the Settlement Deed. The First Respondent also filed a Writ Appeal against the order of dismissal of the Vacate Stay Petition, the Writ Appeal was also dismissed. The First Respondent filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.546 of 2005 questioning the validity of the Legal Heirship Certificate issued to the Petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was disposed of on 28.01.2008, with a direction to move the Civil Court.

(iv) In the Counter Affidavit filed by the First Respondent, the First Respondent claims that she is the legally wedded wife of the said Pandian Poojari and their marriage was solemnized on 10.05.1985 and s