BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
Panar Kula Thaiyarkarargal Sangam, rep., by its President - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District and ors. - Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.6573 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2025
ORDER :
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
This writ petition seeks for mandamus to direct the Tahsildar, Vembakottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, to hand over the keys of “Arulmighu Kathavarayan and Kamba Kamakshiamman Temple”, situated at Sankaramoorthypatti, Alangulam, Sivakasi Taluk, Virudhunagar District, to enable the petitioner Sangam to conduct
festival from 14.03.2025 to 16.03.2025 and for consequential orders.
2. The case of the petitioner is that in Sankaramoorthypatti Village, there is a temple dedicated for the worship of “Arulmighu Kathavarayan and Kamba Kamakshiamman”. The petitioner pleads that the said deity is the
of Panar community. According to them, the temple was constructed by the members of Panar community and they have been in management of the same for years on end.
3.They pleaded that one Karuppaiah sought to interfere with the conduct of festival, constraining the then President of the Sangam, one Paramanandam to institute a suit before the Additional District Munsif Court at Sattur. This suit in O.S.No.93 of 1985 was one for bare injunction. It came to be decreed on 27.04.1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, Karuppaiah preferred a regular appeal in A.S.No.64 of 1987. The appeal came to be allowed by a judgment and decree dated 23.08.1988. Against the reversal of the judgment and decree, a second appeal was preferred before this Court in S.A.No.296 of 1989.
4. Pending the second appeal, the original defendant Karuppaiah passed away and one Saravanan was brought on record. The said second appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the trial Court on 07.06.2011. There was a direction to the learned Additional District Munsif at Sattur, to frame an additional issue whether the earlier suits with respect to the same temple in O.S.No.69 of 1981 and O.S.No.85 of 1978 would operate as a bar for the subsequent suit.
5. At this stage, I should point out that O.S.No.69 of 1981 and O.S.No.85 of 1978 had been dismissed for default. After the remand, the suit in O.S.No.93 of 1985 was renumbered as O.S.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court in C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.2692 of 2018, another suit filed in O.S.No.229 of 2012 was permitted to be withdrawn. In the meantime, the petitioner in W.P(MD).No.6457 of 2025, namely, Mr.S.Muthukumar presented a suit in O.S.No.32 of 2012 claiming to represent all the four communities in the Village, namely Panar, Servai, Thondaiman and Semman. He was successful in obtaining an interim order, which was challenged before this Court by way of a revision. Interim orders were obtained in the said revision. Thereafter, O.S.No.32 of 2012 came to be withdrawn.
6. The insatiable appetite for litigation of these four communities is evident from the facts. The renumbered suit in O.S.No.13 of 2013 came to be decreed, against which, the said Muthukumar preferred an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2016. Similarly, as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.229 of 2012 (it had been withdrawn subsequently), an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.23 of 2016. The original defendant, who was impleaded as representing the Panar; community, namely, Mr.Paramanandam passed away. Instead of impleading another person from the same community to represent the interest of the body, the said Muthukumar impleaded his daughter Thenammal @ Thenmozhi as a party to the suit. The said Thenammal had no objection for the suit preferred against her father to be decreed and the suit presented by him came to be dismissed. Consequently, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the appeals in A.S.Nos.23 and 28 of 2016.
7. Before I proceed to narrate what finally happened in the second appeals, I have to point out that on the strength of the decree obtained in A.S.No.23 of 2016, before the Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi; Muthukumar presented a writ petition in W.P(MD).No.3894 of 2022 seeking a direction to the Tahsildar to hand over the keys of the temple to him for celebr



The court prioritized the uninterrupted conduct of the 'khrp' festival while acknowledging ongoing disputes over temple management, emphasizing the need for peace and order.
The court applied the principle of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for the handover of temple keys for the Annual Masi Festival.
Hereditary trustee entitled to organize temple festival; devotees permitted participation despite pending appeal.
The court affirmed the petitioners' right to conduct the Kudai Festival pending resolution of legal disputes regarding temple administration, emphasizing due process and respect for ongoing litigatio....
Court directs peace committee to resolve temple priest dispute and ensure inclusive festival participation without excommunication.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.