Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH, THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Shanmugasundara Bhattar (Died) and ors. – Appellants
Versus
S.Chandrasekara Bhattar and ors. – Respondents
W.A.(MD)No.1528 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No.10880 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2023
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments - Dispute over Pooja Rights - Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 63(e), 108 - The court interpreted Section 63(e) as providing the Joint Commissioner with the authority to resolve disputes regarding customary rights to perform Pooja in religious institutions. The court emphasized that such disputes must be adjudicated under the Act, as Section 108 bars civil suits on matters related to the administration of religious institutions. The court concluded that the dispute was not merely a rival claim but a question of customary rights, necessitating a proper inquiry by the Joint Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, an Archakar at a temple, contested the appellant's claim to perform Pooja duties, which the appellant sought after being engaged for Murai duties since 1968. The Joint Commissioner had previously granted the appellant partial Pooja rights, leading to a series of legal challenges by the writ petitioner, who argued that the dispute fell under Section 63(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was not merely about rival claims but centered on the customary rights to perform Pooja, which should be resolved under Section 63(e) of the Act. The court held that the Joint Commissioner must conduct a proper inquiry into the matter, as the issues raised were within the jurisdiction of the HR & CE Department and not the civil courts.
Issues: Whether the dispute regarding the right to perform Pooja duties falls under Section 63(e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and whether the Joint Commissioner has the authority to adjudicate such disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that disputes regarding customary rights to perform religious duties must be resolved under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, specifically Section 63(e), which mandates inquiries into such matters, and that civil courts lack jurisdiction in these cases due to the bar imposed by Section 108 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the Joint Commissioner was directed to hear the parties and decide on the application filed under Section 63(e) of the Act within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.17634 of 2017 dated 08.10.2018.
The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) and the Writ Petitioner is arrayed as R1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘writ petitioner’) in this Writ Appeal. The Joint Commissioner (JC) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department and the Executive Officer (EO)/Joint Commissioner of Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple (in short ‘Temple’) were arrayed as R1 and R2 in the Writ Petition and R2 and R3 in the Writ Appeal and are henceforth referred to as per their array in the appeal, that is, R2 and R3.
2. The brief facts that arise in the matter culminating in order dated 08.10.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.17634 of 2017 are as follows:
ii) Traditionally, Archakars are appointed based on ancestry and render three kinds of duties, viz., a) performance of Pooja b) performance of Murai and c) those who perform both Pooja and Murai.
iii) The writ petitioner was engaged exclusively for performance of Pooja.
iv) According to the writ petitioner, appellant was engaged only for performance of Murai from 1968.
v) While so, the appellant approached the JC/EO of the Temple on 21.06.2010 asking for assignment of Pooja duties as well.
vi) Despite objections of the writ petitioner as well as others, an order was passed on 15.02.2013 holding that the appellant had 1/6th right in pooja rights and was thus entitled to perform pooja on the 7th and 22nd day of every month per the Tamil calendar.
vii) The above order was assailed by the writ petitioner before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department in Revision Petition No.19 of 2013, which came to be dismissed by the Commissioner on 06.08.2013.
viii) The petitioner was of the view that the specific ground in relation to assumption of jurisdiction by the EO had not been properly answered by the EO.
ix) Thus, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.22632 of 2013, which was disposed on 07.10.2014. The operative portion of that order reads thus:
‘8. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would take recourse to Section 63(e) of the Act. There cannot be any objection to the said course of action. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition, may not directly satisfy the requirements of Section 63(e) of the Act. Under Section 63(e) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner is obliged to hold a full-fledged enquiry, in respect of certain disputes and matters listed out in clauses (a) to (g). It is like a judicial enquiry and hence there cannot be any impediment for the petitioner to invoke Section 63(e) of the Act.
9. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application under Section 63(e) of the Act. It is open to the parties to raise the question of locus standi of the petitioner also before the Joint Commissioner, if and when the petitioner moves an application under Section 63(e) of the Act. Independent of the orders passed, the Joint Commissioner can go into the question of the locus standi of the petitioner. No costs. The Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.’
x) Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1650 of 2015 was preferred by writ petitioner and the order of the Writ Court was confirmed on 07.01.2016 in the following terms:
‘……..
“3. The learned single Judge, examining all the facts of the case, observed that if an application is moved by the appellant/writ petitioner, the dispute may be resolved by the Joint Commissioner, without being influenced by the observations made by the Court and also other orders passed.
4. In such view of the matter, without adjudicating the dispute, we are also of the view that on an appreciation to be made by the appellant, the Joint Commissioner (Administration), Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Depar
Civil courts cannot adjudicate matters related to poojariship and associated rights, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner as per the HR & CE Act.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide disputes over hereditary trusteeship when there are rival claimants, and the authorities under the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a dispute over temple rights, the courts may determine the issue of title in a suit for injunction if the matter involved is simple and str....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the trustee to appoint and allocate archakars as per Section 55(1) of the Act, and the inalienability of hereditary religious r....
The court affirmed that while trusteeship can be hereditary, poojariship is not, as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, emphasizing the secular nature of appointments.
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
