Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BAKTHAVATSALAM
R. Shanmugha Sundaram
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments & Others
W.P.No.6157 of 1991
Decided On : 20-06-1991
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, a devotee and follower of Sri Pamban Kumara Gurudasa Swamigal, seeks to prevent the respondents from interfering with the management of the Samadhi and to ensure that the religious rituals are performed in accordance with the Swamigal's last wishes (!) [21000931010001].
The Swamigal was a revered saint, whose last will and testament, along with a codicil, created a religious endowment and appointed a Sabha called Mahathejo Mandalam to manage his Samadhi and conduct religious festivals and rituals (!) [21000931010001].
The land and the Samadhi of the Swamigal were purchased and established in 1929, and since then, the Mahathejo Mandalam has been performing daily poojas and festivals, following the Swamigal's wishes (!) [21000931010001].
There are allegations that the Samadhi is only a sacred place or private worship site, lacking the characteristics of a temple, such as architectural features or public temple characteristics (!) [21000931010001].
The respondents, namely the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, have taken control of the Samadhi management, citing that the institution has become a temple or religious institution under the Act, and have appointed administrative officers (!) [21000931010001].
The petitioner disputes the characterization of the Samadhi as a temple, asserting it is only a Samadhi and does not possess the essential features of a temple as defined under the relevant law (!) [21000931010001].
The court recognizes that the question of whether the Samadhi constitutes a temple or a religious institution is a factual and legal issue that requires a determination of the institution's characteristics, which has not yet been conclusively decided by the authorities (!) [21000931010001].
The court emphasizes that the jurisdiction of the department to interfere depends on whether the institution falls within the scope of the law, which is contingent upon a prior decision regarding its nature and characteristics (!) [21000931010001].
The court notes that the intervention by the department based solely on a letter from a trustee or management figure, without a proper legal determination, is unwarranted and exceeds lawful authority (!) [21000931010001].
The court concludes that the department has acted without proper jurisdiction and that the management of the Samadhi should be handed over to the third respondent, the Sabha, which has been managing the institution according to the Swamigal's wishes (!) [21000931010001].
The court highlights that the Samadhi's primary purpose is religious and spiritual, and it should not be converted into or treated as a public temple unless it fulfills the legal criteria of a temple (!) [21000931010001].
The court grants a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the management of the Samadhi to the Sabha, within a specified period, to ensure the religious practices are maintained as per the Swamigal's last wishes (!) [21000931010018].
It is underscored that any management or control exercised by the department without proper legal basis is unlawful, and the department should have left the place undisturbed, respecting the religious sentiments and practices associated with the Samadhi (!) [21000931010018].
The decision reinforces that the characteristics of the institution must be legally established before the department can exercise jurisdiction, and in the absence of such a determination, intervention is not justified (!) [21000931010001].
Overall, the court affirms that the management and religious rituals should continue under the control of the Sabha, aligning with the Swamigal's expressed wishes, and that the department's actions were not supported by proper legal authority (!) [21000931010018].
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
1. Theprayer in the writ petition is as follows:
.“…….to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein, the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Madras 34, to entrust to the Mahathejo Mandala Sabha, the third respondent herein, the performance of all the religious and spiritual rituals of Sri Pamban Kumara Gurudasa Swamigal Samadhi at Thiruvanmiyur Madras 41 in accordance with the sacred and pious’ wishes of Sri Pamban Kumaragurudas Swamigal in his last will and testament dated 17.7.1926………”
2. The petitioner is a follower and devotee of Srimath Kumara Gurudasa Swamigal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Swamigal’) and the Swamigal was an inspired baktha of Lord Muruga and had contributed the celebrated ‘Shanmugha Kavasam’, ‘Panchamirtha Vannam’, “Kumarasthavam” and also had composed more than 6,666 compositions. It seems that Swamigal was a legend, saint and a gnani during his lifetime with a lot of followers and devotees including the most popular and prominent Tamil scholar like Thiru Vi.Ka. and Dr.Gurusamy Mudaliar and others. It seems that before attaining Jeevan Mukthi, Swamigal left his last will and testament in the year 1926 and codicil in the year 1927 which were probated on the original side of this Court in O.P.No.187 of 1933 and under the terms of the said Will, Swamigal had appointed a Sabha called ‘Mahathejo Mandalam’ with 21 members constituting mostly his disciples, bakthas or worshippers of Lord Subramania and they Have to perform ‘Mayura Vahana Sevanam’ festival and other pooja rituals. It seems that mortal remains of the Swamigal were duly preserved in a Samadhi on 20.5.1929 and after he attained Samadhi, and the land in which Swamigal was enshrined, in an extent of 2 kanis and 4 grounds bearing pymash No.967 at Thiruvanmiyur village was purchased in the name of the Secretary, Mahathejo Mandala Sabha on 4.6.1929. Since 1929 onwards, daily poojas, Mahasivarathri, Kandar Sashti Mayura Vahana Sevanam and all the other religious festivals are performed by the Mahathejo’ Mandala Sabha in accordance with the last wishes of Swamigal. It seems that in the year 1951 another Samadhi was raised adjacent to the Samadhi of Swamigal, of one Chinnasami Jothidar, who was an intimate and important disciple of Swamigal. It is further alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that there is nothing in the said place with the characteristics of a temple such as Gopuram, Mahamantapam, Dwajasthambam, Arthamantapam, etc., that it is only a sacred place or Samadhi and it is only a private place of worship. It seems that the respondents 1 and 2 herein decided to take over from one T.T.Kuppusami Chettiar who was in charge of the Sabha in 1991. In a writ petition filed by him in W.P.No.3501 of 1971 by order dated 4.9.1973, Ramaprasada Rao.J. (as he then was) has allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of prohibition, holding that the assumption of the jurisdiction by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department is without authority and without decision as to Whether the institution should come within the four corners of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, in the year 1984, it seems the said Kuppusami Chettiar who was the then President of the Sabha allowed the department to take over the management of the Samadhi and its property. It is alleged in the affidavit that the respondents 1 and 2 do not seem to know, realise or enforce the pious wishes of the Swamigal and in violation of the conditions given by the Swamigal in his will and that it offends Arts.25 to 27 of the Constitution of India, It is further alleged in the affidavit that as a dedicated and devoted follower of the Swamigal the petitioner has the right to seek the doctrines and religious practices, which are offered in the Samadhi through the Sabha, the third respondent herein, wh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
