The appointment of hereditary trustees under Section 54(1) of the HR&CE Act, 1959 is subject to the result of the Civil Court, and the dispute over the appointment cannot be decided by the Joint Commissioner.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent herein in Miscellaneous Petition No.66/2021/Aa1/dated 15.02.2023 and quash the same.)

This writ petition is filed challenging the records of the first respondent herein in Miscellaneous Petition No.66/2021/Aa1/dated 15.02.2023 and quash the same.

2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that Mr.P.G.Santhappa Poojari, petitioner''s grandfather, was originally appointed as Hereditary Trustee to the Arulmighu Gurunathsamy Temple situated at Anthiyur, vide Board''s Order No.4361 dated 08.08.1950 and subsequently, he died on 04.09.1973. His son, who is the father of the second respondent namely Mr.P.S.Santhappan, filed an application under Section 54(1) of the HR&CE Act, 1959 for appointment of hereditary trustee of the temple. Since, the other legal heirs had no objections, the application was allowed on 21.02.2007. The said Mr.P.S.Santhappan died on 12.04.2021, and after his demise, the second respondent, who is the only son of Mr.P.S.Santhappan filed an application in M.P.No.66 of 2021 under Section 54(1) to appoint himself as the Hereditary Trustee.

3. The petitioner is the cousin of the second respondent had filed application in I.A.No.58 of 2021 in M.P.No.66 of 2021 and the said I.A.No.58 of 2021 was dismissed by order dated 29.04.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.14278 of 2022 and the same was dismissed on 23.09.2022 observing the first respondent is not competent to decide the issue and granted liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.575 of 2022 on the file of Sub-Court, Bhavani to declare his right as hereditary trustee. When the suit was pending, the impugned order has been passed appointing the second respondent as the hereditary trustee. Hence, this petition.

4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the order has been passed by the Court in W.P.No.14278 of 2022 vide Order dated 23.09.2022 has clearly held that the Joint Commissioner cannot decide the dispute between the hereditary trustees. Accordingly, it was directed to approach the Civil Court. Pursuant to such directions, the petitioner already filed a suit in O.S.No. 575 of 2022, before Sub-Court, Bhavani which is pending. At this stage, once again, the impugned order has been passed appointing the second respondent as the hereditary trustees. Such view of the matter, the second respondent ought not to have been appointed as the Hereditary Trustee, which is contrary to the findings of this Court. Hence, submitted that the Order requires to be interfered.

5. Mr. N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent and Mrs.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.

6. At this stage, this Court is of the view that the second respondent was appointed as Hereditary Trustee only after the permanent vacancy arose in the office of the Hereditary Trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. It is relevant to note that this Court in W.P.No. 113291 of 1989 has held as follows:

“...3. Under S.54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. There is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. In this case, the petitioner had to approach the first respondent, because a fit person, was already in charge of the administration of the temple. As the first respondent had appointed the fit person, the petition sought a direction to the fit person from the first respondent to