Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN
Sivasubramania Bhattar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Under assail is the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16043 of 2025 dated 17.02.2026.
2.Originally, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department in R.P.No.1 of 2025/D2 . It is the case of the appellant that his grand-father, Sankarakuthala Bhattar had 1 ¼ days pooja murai in the pooja turn that runs between 18th day to 20th day of every Tamil month in the fourth respondent temple. In 1948, the said Sankarakuthala Bhattar fell in ill and since the appellant's father was a minor by that time, the appellant's grandfather as a stop gap arrangement had given a leave vacancy request to permit his cognate Krishna Bhattar to perform the pooja murai. In 1952, for some misdeeds, said Krishna Bhattar was suspended. He had son by name Kalyana Appaswamybhattar, who is the father of the sixth respondent. After suspension of Krishna Bhattar in 1952, another cognate of appellant's grandfather was doing the pooja murai. After the death of the appellant's grandfather, the said Kalyana Appaswamybhattar filed a suit in O.S.No. 297 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivaikuntam seeking
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.
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.
Amended S.55 TN HR&CE Act abolishes hereditary pujari rights; civil declaration unavailable.
No hereditary poojariship; temporary Poojari appointments barred after age 60 under HR&CE Act and Rules.
The removal of an individual from a service appointment without prior notice, charge memo, or an opportunity for an enquiry violates the principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable.
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....
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
