Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Arul Migu Sri Anjeneyar Swamy Devasthanam,Rep. by its Secretary K. Kannabiran & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endorsement Board, Chennai & Another - Respondents
Application Nos. 4015 & 4016 of 2022 in C.S. No. 146 of 1933
Decided On : 29-03-2023
Idols - Temple Possession - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act-1959 - Section 46, Section 47(1)(c), Section 71 - The court directed the 2nd respondent to handover the possession of the 64 idols and other assets of the temple to the petitioner, and set aside the proceedings in SE.Mu.Na.3622/22/A1 dated 04.02.2022 passed by the first respondent.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought possession of idols and assets of the temple, claiming that the possession was taken in contravention to the scheme framed by the court in 1934. The first respondent initiated proceedings and appointed the 2nd respondent as a Fit person to manage the temple, which the applicants challenged as against the scheme decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple was not listed under Section 46 of the Act, and the impugned order was premature and not in compliance with the procedural mandates. The court held that the trustees appointed through the scheme decree can continue the management of the temple until the temple is published under Section 46 or notified under Section 71.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of idols and assets of the temple, the appointment of a Fit person to manage the temple, and the compliance with the procedural mandates under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was premature and not in compliance with the procedural mandates under the Act, and directed the 2nd respondent to handover the possession of the idols and assets to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications, directing the 2nd respondent to handover the possession of the idols and assets of the temple to the petitioner, and setting aside the proceedings passed by the first respondent.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in Application No.4015/2022:- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 151 of CPC, to direct the 2nd respondent to handover the possession of the 64 idols and other assets of the temple to petitioner, from whom the possession has been taken on 12.07.2022 in contravention to the scheme framed by this Court in C.S.No.146 of 1933 dated 11.12.1934.
in Application No.4016/2022:- Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section 151 of CPC, to declare that the proceedings in SE.Mu.Na.3622/22/A1 dated 04.02.2022, and consequently appointing the 2nd respondent as Fit person of the temple as null and void, as the same is against the scheme framed by this Hon''ble court in C.S.No.146 of 1933 dated 11.12.1934.)
Common Order:
1. The Application in 4015/2022 has been filed by the applicant to direct the 2nd respondent to handover the possession of the 64 idols and other assets of the temple to petitioner, from whom the possession has been taken on 12.07.2022 in contravention to the scheme framed by this Court in C.S.No.146 of 1933 dated 11.12.1934 and another Application in 4016/2022 has been filed to declare that the proceedings in SE.Mu.Na.3622/22/A1 dated 04.02.2022, and consequently appointing the 2nd respondent as Fit person of the temple as null and void, as the same is against the scheme framed by this Hon''ble Court in C.S.No.146 of 1933 dated 11.12.1934.
2. Heard Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.A.Vinuprasha, learned counsel appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs and Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and Mr.A.Sriram, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.A.S.Kailasam & Associates appearing for the second respondent/defendant.
3. The avernments of the plaint in brief, as hereunder:
The plaint has been preferred by Arul Migu Sri Anjeneyar Swamy Devasthanam, represented by its Secretary who is the first applicant herein and the other applicants are the Trustees and office bearers of the Trust. The petition mentioned property is administrated and maintained as per the scheme framed by the High Court in C.S.No.146 of 1933. The properties of devasthanam and mutt are vested in the board of 5 trustees selected from the following caste and communities in Madras;
1. One Trustee from the Lala community
2. One Trustee from the Marwadi community
3. One Trustee from the Naidu community
4. One Trustee from the Mudalair community
5. One Trustee from the Byradi Sadhu community.
3.1. As per the scheme, the trustees have to hold their office until their retirement or death. On the retirement of the trustee, the other trustees shall co opt another trustee of the caste or the community of the retiring trustee. The board of trustees shall select from among themselves a president, a treasurer and a secretary. The trustees shall be honourary trustees without any remuneration. One of the trustees is permitted to reside inside the temple premises and the board of trustees shall meet once in a month at temple premises. The income of the trust shall be used for payment of rent and other expenses. The balance of 2/3 of the income will be spent for daily pooja, worship and festival. The remaining 1/3rd income shall be spent for feeding the Bhairagis and saadhu''s, who are boarding and lodging at the mutt.
3.2. As per the scheme, the trustees shall maintain the temple and the accounts also to be monitored periodically. The first respondent initiated a proceeding in SE.Mu.Na.3622/22/A1 dated 04.02.2022 and observed that the Anjeneyar temple was not a declared temple under Section 46 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act-1959. The temple is to be administered only by four trustees. As the second respondent had been appointed as a Fit person through an order dated 04.02.2022, he had taken over the administration on 12.07.2022. The p
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural mandates under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act-1959, and upheld the rights of the trustees appointed throu....
The court affirmed the hereditary trusteeship of defendants, ruling that plaintiffs failed to prove mismanagement or entitlement to non-hereditary trusteeship under the Hindu Religious Charitable End....
The appointment of non-hereditary trustees is valid under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act when there is evidence of mismanagement by hereditary trustees, and full legal procedures a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assistant Commissioner does not have the power to declare an institution as a religious institution and appoint a fit person under Section....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of the rights of religious denominations under Section 107 of the Act and Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution, and the requireme....
The Commissioner lacked authority to appoint an Executive Officer for temple administration, violating established law and trustee rights under the HR & CE Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the HR&CE Department has the power to appoint non-hereditary trustees, but when a scheme is already in force, trustees must be appointed only ....
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
