The court affirmed that hereditary trusteeship of the temple is governed by a final civil court decree, overriding previous arrangements.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.32926 of 2025 P.Ponnusamy ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600 034.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem- 636 001.

3. The Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Mettur Taluk, Salem.

4. S.Rajagopal ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent i.e. Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem to pass an order in O.Mu.No.9505/2023/E2/dated 22.09.2023, appointing the petitioner and his brothers are the Hereditary Trustees of the Temple namely Arulmigu Sri Siddeswarar Thirukoil, Palamalai, Mettur Salem District as per the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.216/1989 dated 13.08.1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari, Salem District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.07.2025, within a stipulated time fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner: Mr.N.Vijaya Basker for M/s.Law Vision For Respondents: Mr.S.Ravichandran Additional Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.R.Rajarajan for R4

ORDER

The writ petition is filed directing the second respondent i.e. Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Salem to appoint the petitioner and his brothers as hereditary trustees of the temple, namely Arulmigu Sri Siddeswarar Thirukoil, Palamalai, Mettur, Salem District as per the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.216 of 1989 dated 13.08.1992 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankari, Salem District, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 08.07.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that when the family members were claiming hereditary trusteeship in respect of the said temple and earlier the hereditary trusteeship of the family had been approved by orders in O.A.No.9 of 1951, since disputes arose between the family members, as many as four civil suits came to be filed in O.S.Nos.23 of 1981, 37 of 1981, 169 of 1981, 282 of 1981 and 726 of 1981 before the Munsif Court, Mettur, Salem District and common judgment and decree were passed on 24.05.1984 in favour of the petitioner and his brothers. Aggrieved parties preferred A.S. No.87 of 1985 and A.S. No.88 of 1985 before the Subordinate Judge, Sankari, Salem.

Pending the appeal suit, the parties compromised the issue and a memo of compromise was recorded and the suit was decreed based on the compromise, in which the parties agreed that the temple administration would be on a rotational basis. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brothers, who were minors at that time, upon attaining majority filed O.S.No.216 of 1989 to wriggle out of the compromise and to declare themselves as the hereditary trustees of the said temple and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their rights. It is seen that the said suit came to be decreed on 13.08.1992. Therefore, by virtue of the said decree, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department can no longer appoint hereditary trustees on a rotational basis, but only recognise the petitioner and his brothers as the hereditary trustees.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first to third respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner has been considered in detail and an order has been passed on 28.08.2026, since the earlier order in O.A.No.9 of 1951 was there and thereafte