Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Dept. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. These Writ Petitions have been taken together as the Writ Petition in W.P.No.411 of 2025 seeks to implement the order dated 16.11.2024, while the other challenges the very same order.
2. Heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.I.Velpradeep for petitioner in W.P.No.411 of 2025 & R3 in W.P.(MD).No.903 of 2025, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan learned counsel appearing for Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.903 of 2025, Mr.P.Subbaraj learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr.P.Athimoola Pandian learned counsel for the second respondent in both W.Ps in both W.Ps and M/s.Asha Learned Government Advocate, (Criminal side) appearing for RR3&4 in W.P.(MD).No.411 of 2025.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No.411 of 2025 would submit that the petitioner had been recognised as the hereditary Trustee by the orders of the Joint Commissioner, dated 16.07.2024 and that the said order is yet to be implemented by the authorities, as the second respondent who is holding the office as the fit person is still in possession and management of the temple and even after the recognition of the petitioner, as a hereditary
The court mandated fresh consideration of hereditary trusteeship claims under procedural fairness, emphasizing current management until resolutions are provided per established laws.
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 court upheld the appointment of a fit person for temple administration under Section 49 of the H.R.&C.E. Act, emphasizing the need for substantiated claims regarding trusteeship amid ongoing disp....
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....
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 Comm....
The court held that hereditary rights to temple administration supersede unilateral executive appointments when trusteeship disputes are pending, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements and p....
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 ....
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
