Back
S. SOUNTHAR
Executive Officer, Arulmighu Karkuval Ayyanar Koil – Appellant
Versus
Kanda Pillai (Died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 4 of 2005, dated 4.10.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin granting the relief B in the suit, and thereby partly allowing the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 65 of 2003, dated 19.11.2004, on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruchendur.
1. The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 to 13 originally filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
(b) declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to remuneration attached to the office of the hereditory poojaris.
(c) to cancel the proceedings of the second defendant Tahsildar, Thiruchendur in his proceedings in DTR.NO. 10 of 1976, dated 8.4.1991 and for costs.
2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 to 13 preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi. The First Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the suit prayer (a) and (c). However, the
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.
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 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 ....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving religious properties when necessary parties, specifically deities, are absent; such matters should be resolved under the relevant endowment act.
The court established that hereditary trusteeship exists among family descendants, but poojariship must be appointed through proper authority, as hereditary rights were abolished under the Act.
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....
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
