The Kattalai associated with the Thaipoosam festival is a public religious charitable endowment, and claims based on caste are unconstitutional.

COMMON ORDER

A.The Writ Petitions:

These three Writ Petitions seek identical relief and are therefore addressed and disposed of by this common order.

1.1 The Writ Petitions in W.P.No.44154 of 2016 and W.P. (MD) No.9688 of 2021 challenge the order dated 17.09.2016. W.P.No.1852 of 2017 challenges the aforementioned order dated 17.09.2016 as well as the consequential proceedings dated 08.10.2016.

B.The Background:

2. The Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple in Pazhani is an ancient temple. It is believed that the presiding deity, Dhandayuthapaniswamy, was installed and consecrated by Sri-La-Sri Bogar, a celebrated siddar, several centuries ago. Arulmigu Periya Nayaki Amman Thirukoil is also a sub-temple of this Devasthanam and is located at the foothills of the Pazhani hills. In this temple, Sri Muthukumaraswami and his divine consorts, Valli and Devasena, are installed and worshipped.

2.1. The Thaipoosam festival in respect of the said temple is celebrated in a grand manner for a period of 10 days. It commences with the Kodiyetram ceremony on the first day at the Muthukumaraswami Kodimaram in the Arulmigu Periya Nayaki Amman Thirukoil. On that first day, apart from flag hoisting, the ratha veethi thiruvizha of Arulmigu Valli Deivasena Sametha Muthukumaraswami takes place, with the Mandagapadi being conducted.

C. The Case in W.P. No. 1852 of 2017:

3. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 that the first day celebrations are conducted by the people known as 'Vyapurinaatu Pattakkarargal', to a Kattalai known as 'Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai'. The said Writ Petitioners, viz., T.Radhakrishnan and two others, claim that the same is a customary right of the aforesaid pattakkarargal, said to be a sub-sect of a particular caste. They have been conducting the said festival because originally, the kodimaram was erected and thereafter renovated by the ancestors of the said pattakkarargal.

D. The Case in W.P. No. 44154 of 2016:

4. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.44154 of 2016, viz., one P.K.Pazhanisamy that his father and forefathers were the trustees of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Pazhani and 'Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai'. Every year, they wove the flag that was to be hosted, and the honor was given to the petitioner as well as his forefathers and thereafter to the petitioners from time immemorial.

4.1 As a matter of fact, some properties were set apart for this charity. During the lifetime of Mr. P.K. Pazhanisamy's father, a partition suit was filed in O.S. No. 399 of 1951 by one Rakkianna. The suit was contested by the petitioner's father, Kuppuswami, who contended that these properties were designated by the family for performing the necessary kattalais at Pazhani, in connection with the festival. However, the District Munsif Court, Tirupur, in its Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.1953, held that there is no evidence to show that the properties have been endowed and ruled that the properties are partible, stating that the endowment board is not a necessary party to the suit. It is also noted that one M. Subramaniam and R. Jeevanantham have filed an application under Section 63 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, before the Joint Commissioner, and the application is pending.

E. The Case in W.P.No.9688 of 2021:

5. R.Jeevanantham and M.S.Elango have filed W.P.(MD) No. 9688 of 2021. Pending the Writ Petition, the said Jeevanantham died, and his legal heirs, Yuvaraj and Prabha Shankar, have come on record as petitioners 3 and 4. They claim that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 14, 15, 103, 112, and 113/3, totaling 39.36 acres located at Veerapandi Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District, belong to them and their family members for several decades, and their title has been confirmed by the judgment in O.S. No. 399 of 1951. All revenue records are in the name of the family members. When a suit was earlier filed in 1951, Kup