1. The present writ petition has been filed, seeking originally for the following relief:

“To issue Writ of to forbear the respondents from anyway hindering or preventing the petitioner from functioning as the Head of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam.”

2. The facts and circumstances necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition need to be stated as under for better understanding the broad issues involved in the Writ Petition.

3. The petitioner claims himself to be the Head of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam. Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam Mutt is governed by a scheme decree in O.S.No.46 of 1933 passed by the Sub Court, Kumbakonam as amended in A.S.No.51 of 1936 by this Court, exercising its jurisdiction on the appellate side. As per the amended scheme, inter alia among other things, the Head of the Mutt, namely, Panndara Sannadhi shall nominate Junior Pandara Sannadhi during his life time and duly install him with appropriate ceremonies. It also provided for in the absence of installation of Junior Pandara Sannadhi, the Tambiran in the Tirukkuttam shall elect a Pandara Sannadhi. The earlier Madathipathi (Pandara Sannadhi) was Sri La. Sri Sivaprakasa Desika Pandara Sannadhi. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Junior Pandara Sannadhi on 24.3.1997 after observing religious ceremonies in terms of custom and usage of the petitioner Mutt. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Pandada Sannadhi, it was found that he was acting against the interest of the Mutt as well as Pandara Sannadhi and a criminal complaint was lodged on 6.7.2002. On investigation of the criminal complaint, a case was registered for offences of conspiracy and attempt to murder against Junior Pandara Sannadhi. The trial Court convicted the petitioner and others and the same was also confirmed in C.A.No.4 of 2004 by the Principal Sessions Court, Nagapattinam. However, ultimately, in Crl.R.C.No.1252 of 2005, this Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the petitioner and others vide order dated 1.8.2011. During the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued on 15.7.2002 by the Mutt, directing him to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him for various irregularities committed by him. In response to the show cause notice, a reply was sent by the petitioner through his advocate to the Madathipathi. Since the reply given on behalf of the petitioner was not satisfactory, ultimately, vide letter dated 24.7.2002, the petitioner was removed from the position of Junior Pandara Sannadhi. As per the removal notice, Junior Pandara Sannadhi had not been attending regular rituals and performing poojas and had been incarcerated in prison and thereby was disabled from performing due rituals and poojas and such person cannot be a Junior Pandara Sannadhi and therefore, disentitled to succeed as Madathipathi in respect of the petitioner Mutt. It appears that the removal of the petitioner from the position of Junior Pandara Sannadhi, has been communicated to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department on the same day.

4. On being removed as Junior Pandara Sannadhi, the petitioner approached the District Munsif Court, Myladuthurai in O.S.No.343 of 2002 in November 2002, praying for declaration that his removal from the post of Junior Adheenakarthar of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, by communication dated 24.7.2002 was not legally valid and not binding upon him and with consequential prayer, restraining the Adheenakarthar, namely, Head of the Mutt, from interfering with the post of Junior Adheenam, the plaintiff, by appointing any other person in his place.

5. A detailed written statement was filed on behalf of the Mutt and a counter affidavit was also filed in the Interlocutory Application filed along with the suit. No orders were passed in the Interlocutory Application pending the suit. Ultimately on 24.12. 2004, the suit came to be dismissed for defau