Amended S.55 TN HR&CE Act abolishes hereditary pujari rights; civil declaration unavailable.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The second plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present Second Appeal.

2. I have heard Dr.C.Gunaseela Rupan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. A. Saravanan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, and Mr.A.N. Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the proposed 4^th respondent in CMP(MD) No. 16732 of 2025.

3. The brief facts that may be necessary to adjudicate the present Second Appeal are as hereunder:

(i) The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 256 of 2009 seeking a relief of declaration to declare them as pujari in Arulmigu Soolapidariamman Temple and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the Pujariship rights. The suit was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs did not have any pujari rights in the temple and they were not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. After trial, the suit was decreed on 11.07.2018. After the decree dated 11.07.2018, a fit person was appointed for the administration and management of Arulmigu Soolapidari Amman Temple. Before the first Appellate Court, the first appeal was preferred by the first defendant, and the same was allowed on 16.10.2024.

ii) Pending the first appeal, the proposed 4^th respondent, viz., the fit person of the temple, moved an application in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 seeking to implead himself as a party respondent in the first appeal. However, the said application was dismissed by order dated 07.12.2022. The proposed 4^th respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the impleading application, and the said matter attained finality. However, in the present Second Appeal, the first respondent has taken out CMP(MD) No. 16732 of 2025 seeking to implead the 4^th respondent, the fit person of the temple, contending that though the 4^th respondent did not challenge the dismissal of the application in I.A. No. 1 of 2022, there was no occasion for the first respondent to take up the matter earlier. Further, in view of the pendency of the first appeal, though the first appeal has now been decided in favour of the first respondent, the first respondent states that the 4^th respondent is a proper and necessary party for effective adjudication of the Second Appeal.

iii) The above said application has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the appellant, contending that when an attempt to implead the fit person was unsuccessful even before the first Appellate Court, it is not open to the successful first respondent to seek impleadment of the fit person of the temple in the present Second Appeal. It is also his contention that the fit person came to be appointed only pursuant to the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the fit person does not have any role to play. It is also his contention that the management and administration of the temple is an entirely different issue, and the suit is only to declare the pujari rights of the appellant and hence, the fit person is neither a proper nor a necessary party, and therefore, he seeks dismissal of the application.

iv) By order dated 16.03.2026, I had directed the CMP to be taken along with the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal, along with the CMP has been argued by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the following substantial question of law was framed:

“Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in deciding the appeal solely on the ground that the amended provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act are applicable to the temple