Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008 Supreme(Mad) 3382

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
S. Marimuthu
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 & Others
W.P.(MD)No.420 of 2007 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 4 of 2007
Decided On :Decided On : 17-09-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.R. Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, K.M. Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader, R3, AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for AL. Gandhimathi, R4, M/s. Concious Elango for Velavadhas, R5 to R9, R. Shanmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for D.R. Sivakumar, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disqualification under Section 26(1)(h) of the HR&CE Act applies only to the specific religious institution in question and not to any other temple or institution unconnected with the temple.

Headnote:
Commissioner - Hereditary Trusteeship - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act - Section 26(1)(h) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the interpretation of Section 26(1)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and its application to the appointment of hereditary trustees. The court highlighted the requirement for a trustee to act in the interest of the religious institution and emphasized that the disqualification under Section 26(1)(h) applies only to the specific institution in question.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a hereditary trustee to a temple in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner sought recognition as the hereditary trustee, but objections were raised by other claimants based on the interpretation of Section 26(1)(h) of the HR&CE Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disqualification under Section 26(1)(h) applies only if a person has acted against the interests of the specific religious institution to which they are being considered for appointment as a trustee. The court also emphasized the need for a trustee to have a good reputation and moral character.
Issues: The key issues included the interpretation of Section 26(1)(h) of the HR&CE Act, the succession of hereditary trusteeship, and the authority of the Commissioner to decide on competing claimants to the office of hereditary trusteeship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disqualification under Section 26(1)(h) applies only to the specific religious institution in question and not to any other temple or institution unconnected with the temple. The court also emphasized that the determination of the method of succession in existence in the temple is necessary and should be decided by a separate suit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner was set aside. The court directed that if any aggrieved person wants to stake a claim for hereditary trusteeship based on any Will or other instrument, they should seek an appropriate remedy before a Civil Court. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

Heard both sides and perused the records.

2. This writ petition raises two interesting questions of law. They are:-

(i) Whether the Commissioner or any of his subordinates can decide the question of right to the office of trusteeship on the basis of a Will left by a testator?. and

(i) Whether the meaning of the term acting "adverse to the interest of the institution" as found in Section 26(1)(h) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act (for short HR&CE Act) will include all institutions or only the particular institution concerned?

3. The writ petition is filed by one S.Marimuthu against the order passed by the first respondent (HR&CE Commissioner) dated 27.11.2006 in allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent against the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, (second respondent) dated 31.03.2006. The matter relates to appointment of an hereditary trustee to the Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Iruggangudi, Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

4. It is stated that one Ramasamy Poojari was one of the hereditary trustee of the said temple. He died on 06.08.1975 leaving three female heirs. After his death, the eldest daughter Mr.Seeni @ Sundarambal applied to the second respondent to register her name as the hereditary trustee in the place of her father.

5. The Arulmighu Mariamman Temple at Iruggangudi is a listed institution under the control of HR&CE Board. The administration of the temple is governed by a scheme framed by the then HR&CE Board, dated 04.05.1935. The said Scheme was modified by the Deputy Commissioner HR&CE in O.A.No.9/55 dated 31.05.1955 by which a provision for appointment of an Executive Officer was made.

6. When one of the hereditary trustee by name Perumal poojari died, his elder son was included in the list of hereditary trustees. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, HR&CE, Ramanatahapupram, called for a meeting of the trustees on 17.06.1975 for the purpose of electing a Chairman for the Board of Trustees. The meeting was attempted to be stalled by filing a writ petition and thereafter, through civil suit by one S.R.Muthuraman poojari. He also declared himself elected as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The other trustees filed a Revision Petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner took up the petition as R.P.No.169 of 75.

7. In that revision petition, the Commissioner held that by virtue of the scheme, a hereditary trustee can be succeeded only by the eldest son of the family and it does not include the other sons of the family. Therefore, when Ramasamy poojari died, Mrs.Seeni @ Sundaramabbal staking her claim for the hereditary trusteeship filed a civil suit being in O.S.No.188/93 before the District Munsif Court, Sattur, for a declaration that she is entitled to succeed to her fathers trusteeship in the Arulmighu Irugangudi Mariamman Temple. The suit was decreed in her favour by judgment and decree dated 13.11.1995. A declaration was given that she was entitled to succeed to the office of the hereditary trusteeship of the said temple.

8. The appeal against the said order filed before the Principal District Court, Srivilliputtur, in A.S.No.27/96 was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the second respondent, Joint Commissioner, recognised Mrs.Seeni @ Sundaramabbal as the hereditary trusteeship of the Arulmighu Irugangudi Mariamman Temple by his order dated 29.01.1998.

9. The said Mrs.Seeni @ Sundaramabbal died on 02.09.2004 leaving three sons and one daughter as her legal heirs. The petitioner, third and fourth respondents are her three sons and also one Muthuramu was her daughter. Since the petitioner was the eldest son, he made an application to the second respondent to register his name as the hereditary trustee of the temple. In the mean while, the third and fourth respondents filed objections. But, however, the second respondent registered the name of the petitioner by his proceedings dated 06.05.2005. He did no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis