Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.Jayachandran, K.K.Ramakrishnan, JJ
P.Seethalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religion and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the temple disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of specific appellants and their claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal history regarding poosariship. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. arguments regarding hereditary claims and applicability of rules. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court observations on mismanagement and financial conditions. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. discussion of statutory provisions impacting poosariship. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 7. court's directive regarding temple administration. (Para 18) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. J,.)
Prelude:
“Religion is not a cloak for enrichment, nor can piety be promoted for pecuniary gain. This case typifies the fable of monkeys fighting over bread: the priests of the shrine of Pandi Muni, revered as the sentinel spirit of Madurai, are squabbling over the division of devotees’ plate offerings and hundi collections, not to serve God but solely for their own personal gain and luxurious, lavish lifestyles. These disputes have now transformed into number of costly litigations, polluting the religious atmosphere. one such is present litigation relating to issue of hereditary poosariship”
2. The batch of writ appeals have
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
