Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SATHISH KUMAR, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Arulmigu Sambugamurthy Ayyanar thirukovil Represented by its Hereditary Trustee S. Shanmugavel – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department – Respondent
WA.(MD)No.454 of 2025|WP(MD)No.5463 of 2025|CMP.(MD)Nos.3579 & 3580 of 2025
For Appellant: Mr.M.Saravanan, for Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
For R1, R2, R4 & R5: Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
For R6: Mr.V.Chandrasekar
For R7: Mr.B.Kirubakaran, for M/s.B.Saravanan Associates
Statutory appeal under Section 69 TN HR&CE Act available; writ court may direct representation as appeal.
Headnote:Under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, an appeal remedy is available against orders appointing hereditary trustees. The temple trustee challenged the appointment of a purported legal heir based on a bogus claim via writ petition. The Single Judge directed treating the representation as an appeal for a reasoned order. The issue was the availability of statutory appeal remedy and propriety of writ direction. The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order, as detailed representation was submitted, permitting fresh appeal grounds. Writ appeal disposed of with directions to decide appeal within three months after hearing parties; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trustee appointment order via writ. (Para 1 , 2) |
(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.(MD)No.5463 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025.
2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Trichy has passed an order dated 22.03.2022 appointing the seventh respondent as hereditary trustee on the ground that he is the legal heir of one Sabapathi Pillai. Challenging the same, the appellant herein has filed the above said writ petition, on the ground that the seventh respondent has made a bogus claim and he is not actually legal heir of the said Sabapathi Pillai. The learned Single Judge by considering the fact that there is an appeal remedy is available, directed the third respondent to treat the appellant's representation as an appeal and to pass a reasoned speaking order on its own merits and in accordance with law.
3.As the appeal remedy is very much available under Section
69 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and as a detailed representation has already been submitted before the concerned authority, we do not find any infirmity in directing the third respondent to treat the representation of the appellant as an appeal. The appellant is permitted to file fresh grounds of appeal before the concerned authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of appeal, the concerned authority shall dispose the same, after hearing all the parties, who are all interested in this matter, within a period of three months, thereafter.
4.With the above directions, this writ appeal is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
