Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman, JJ
R. Mohandoss – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding disputed temple management and fit person appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments challenging the legal requirements for appointing a fit person. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court justifies fit person appointment for asset protection under statutory powers. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court directs claimant to seek statutory recognition, maintaining fit person administration meantime. (Para 10 , 11) |
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
The present writ appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the writ petition.
2.The case of the appellant is that he is the hereditary trustee of the subject temple and prior to him, his father and brother were the hereditary trustee of the temple. However, by the impugned proceedings dated 28.01.2026, a Fit Person was appointed for the temple. Aggrieved by the appointment of the Fit Person, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition.
3.The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that certain properties belonging to the temple had been alienated by members of the family connected with the management of the tem
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
