Madras High Court
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar ... vs Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Judgment Reserved On Judgment Pronounced On
05.03.2025 26.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 and 1955 & 1956 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).Nos.10450, 12190, 11925, 11932, 10447, 10446, 10451, 10448,
14448, 14447, 11888, and 11891 of 2024
W.A(MD)No.1334 of 2024:
1.Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple,
Represented by its Executive Officer/ Joint Commissioner,
Madurai.
2.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Through its Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar, Son of Subramania Iyer,
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan, Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department, Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Page No. 1 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department, Madurai.
4.The Executive Officer,
Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple,
Madurai City – 625 001. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.1445 of 2023, dated 21.06.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
For R2 and R3 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)No.1335 of 2024:
The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil,
Madurai. ... Appellant
-Vs-
1.N.Jegatheesan
2.N.Rajendran
3.N.Karthikeyan
4.The Sub Registrar,
Sub Registrar's Office,
Tallakumal, Madurai.
Page No. 2 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
5.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
119, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai -600 034. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.26248 of 2022, dated 21.06.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Karthik
Senior Counsel,
Assited by Mr.Babu Rajendran
For R4 and R5 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)No.1336 of 2024:
1.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil,
Madurai.
2.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Through its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar
Son of Subramania Iyer,
Page No. 3 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan,
Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8643 of 2023, dated 21.06.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
Assited by Mr.M.Saravanan
For R2 and R3 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)No.1337 of 2024:
1.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil,
Madurai.
2.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Page No. 4 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
Through its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar
Son of Subramania Iyer,
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan,
Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department, Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.10015 of 2023, dated 21.06.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
Assited by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
For R2 and R3 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
W.A(MD)No.1338 of 2024:
Page No. 5 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
1.The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil,
Madurai.
2.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Through its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar
Son of Subramania Iyer,
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan,
Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.21329 of 2023, dated 21.06.2023.
For Appellants : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Mr.V.Raghavachari
Senior Counsel
Assited by Mr.M.Saravanan
Page No. 6 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
For R2 and R3 : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
W.A.(MD)No.1955 of 2024:
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar
Son of Subramania Iyer,
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan,
Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Deputy Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil,
Madurai.
3.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Through its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8643 of 2023, dated 21.06.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Page No. 7 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 and R3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
W.A(MD)No.1956 of 2024:
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai. ... Appellants
-Vs-
1.Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities,
Represented by its Hereditary Trustee,
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar
Son of Subramania Iyer,
No.1-13, Shanthi Sadan, Melakkal Main Road,
Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016.
2.The Joint Commissioner/ Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Thirukoil, Madurai.
3.Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple,
Tirupparankundram, Madurai,
Through its Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.21329 of 2023, dated 21.06.2024.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ashok
Additional Government Pleader
Page No. 8 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
For R2 and R3 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
J. NISHA BANU, J., & S.SRIMATHY, J., Since the issue arising in all the writ appeals are based on the same set of facts, they are taken up for hearing altogether and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. For the purpose of comprehension, the prayers sought for by the writ petitioner in various Writ Petitions filed before this Court are tabulated as under:-
Sl. Particulars Prayer sought for Relief Granted
No.
(1) W.P.(MD) Filed by Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Citing the allowing of earlier
No.1445 of Charities, seeking to forbear the writ petitions filed by Sree 2023 appellants/respondents from interfering Sooravalli Subbaier Charities in with the performance of various W.P.(MD) Nos.8643/2023 & charities performed by the petitioner 10015 of 2023, the Writ and enjoyment of the properties of Sree petition was allowed. Sooravalli Subbaier Trust as per the Scheme Decree dated 06.09.1934 passed in O.S.No.32 of 1932 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai and also to direct the respondents to remove the notice board placed in front of the aforesaid property belonging to the petitioner.
Page No. 9 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
Sl. Particulars Prayer sought for Relief Granted
No.
(2) W.P.(MD) Filed by N.Jegatheesan, N Rajendran & Impugned refusal check slip
No.26248 of N.Karthikeyan seeking to quash the was quashed and the matter was 2022 communication of R1, dated remitted to the file of R1 for 21.03.2022 and consequently direct R1 enquiry and final order to be to register the documents of the passed within a period of petitioners. twelve weeks. Writ petition was allowed.
(3) W.P.(MD) Filed by Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Writ Petition was disposed of.
No.8643 of Charities seeking the relief of
2023 declaration that the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against one
M.S.Sankaran @ M.S.Sankar by the
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment
Department, Madurai should be
declared as without jurisdiction and to
declare the same as contrary to the
scheme decree dated 06.09.1934 passed
in O.S.No.13 of 1932 on the file
Subordinate Court, Madurai.
Sl. Particulars Prayer sought for Relief Granted
No.
(4) W.P.(MD) Filed by Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Writ petition was allowed.
No.10015 of Charities, challenging the rejection of
2023 the request made by them seeking
permission to do Mandagapadi,
Abishekam and Archana to the deities
as per the Scheme Decree, as it was
done for the past 90 years from the date
of scheme decree.
Page No. 10 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
Sl. Particulars Prayer sought for Relief Granted
No.
(5) W.P.(MD) Filed by Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Writ petition was allowed.
No.21329 of Charities forbering the respondents
2023 from interfering with the affairs of the
petitioner Trust, which is functioning as
per the terms of scheme decree dated
06.09.1934 passed in O.S.No.13 of
1932 on the file Subordinate Court,
Madurai.
3. Aggrieved against the above orders passed in the various Writ Petitions, the following writ appeals have been filed:-
Sl. Particulars Prayer sought for
No.
(1) W.A.(MD) Filed by the Temple Authorities, namely Arulmighu Meenakshi
No.1334 of Sundareswarar Temple & Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy, 2024 Tiruparamkundram, Madurai against W.P.(MD) No.1445/23 dated 21.06.2024.
(2) W.A.(MD) Filed by E.O./Joint Commissioner for Arulmighu Meenakshi No.1335 of Sundareswarar Temple against W.P.(MD) No.26248 of 2022 dated 2024 21.06.2024.
(3) W.A.(MD) Filed by the Temple Authorities, namely Arulmighu Meenakshi No.1336 of Sundareswarar Temple & Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy, 2024 Tiruparamkundram, Madurai against W.P.(MD) No.8643 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024.
(4) W.A.(MD) Filed by the Temple Authorities, namely Arulmighu Meenakshi No.1337 of Sundareswarar Temple & Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy, 2024 Tiruparamkundram, Madurai against W.P.(MD) No.10015 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024.
(5) W.A.(MD) Filed by the Temple Authorities, namely Arulmighu Meenakshi No.1338 of Sundareswarar Temple & Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy, 2024 Tiruparamkundram, Madurai against W.P.(MD) No.21329 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024.
Page No. 11 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 (2) W.A.(MD) Filed by E.O./Joint Commissioner for Arulmighu Meenakshi No.1335 of Sundareswarar Temple against W.P.(MD) No.26248 of 2022 dated 2024 21.06.2024.
(6) W.A.(MD) Filed by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.1955 against W.P.(MD) No.8643 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024. of 2024 (7) W.A.(MD) Filed by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department No.1956 against W.P.(MD) No.21329 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024. of 2024
4. The essential facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeals are discussed hereunder:-
4.1. The family of Sooravalli Subbaier consists of Subbaier and his three sons namely (1) Mr.Ramasamy Iyer, (2) Mr.Subramania lyer and (3) Mr.Sankara lyer, who founded “Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities” in the year 1842 in the mantapam of Sree Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, for the performance of the religious activities and charitable purposes.
4.2. The Trust was managed by Sooravalli Subbaier on behalf of the joint family until his death in 1845, after which, the management of the Trust passed into the hands of the other members of the family. Sometime thereafter, the three sons of Sooravalli Subbaier became divided in status, yet the family continued to conduct the charities through one or the other of them, and through the late Rao Bahadur Ramasubbaier, son of the said Ramaswami Iyer (1st son of Subbier). This Page No. 12 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 arrangement continued until the year 1907, when Ramasubbaier died issueless, leaving behind his wife Janaki Ammal. During this entire period, the members of the family maintained utmost cordiality. Although members of the senior line were accorded a certain degree of preferential treatment in matters of physical management for obvious reasons, no transaction of importance affecting the Trust was undertaken by any person without prior consultation with the other members.
4.3. Upon the death of the said Ramasubbaier, the second son of Subbaier viz. Mr.Subramania lyer resumed the Management of the Trust. He continued to administer it until the year 1908, under a registered arrangement made between himself and the aforesaid Janaki Ammal. Thereafter, the Management was temporarily transferred to Janaki Ammal, subject to the reservations and conditions set out therein. The Management remained with her until the year 1922, when one R.Ramaswami Iyer alias Nageswara Ayyar had been taken in adoption by her, with the consent of Mr.Subramania lyer, who after attaining majority entered into the Management of the Trust.
4.4. Initially, the legal battle of these writ appeals began way back in the year 1932. Due to the mal-administration of the Trust headed by the adopted son of Janaki Ammal, viz. R.Ramaswami Iyer alias Nageswara Ayyar, a suit for Page No. 13 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 removal of R.Ramaswami Iyer alias Nageswara Ayyar from his position as Trustee of Suravalli Subbier's charity and for appointment of M.S.Ramaswami Ayyar or any other qualified person as its trustee of the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities and for framing a scheme for carrying out the objects of the public charitable trust and other reliefs under Section 92 of C.P.C. came to be filed in O.S.No.13 of 1932 before the Subordinate Court, Madurai by M.S.Ramaswami Iyer and Sitharama Sastrigal. The suit was decreed on 6.09.1934, whereby a draft scheme filed by the plaintiffs on 21.06.1933, came to be filed before the said Subordinate Court, Madurai and upon the consent of both sides, the Scheme Decree obtained its approval, thereby calling it as the “Sooravalli Subbaier Charities Scheme”. The Scheme Decree was acted upon, and the same came into force on the same day itself. For the past 90 years, the charities are being performed from and out of the income from the properties which are earmarked for the performance charities without any interruptions till now.
4.5. Under the said Scheme Decree, the right of management of the Trust and its properties were vested with the agnates of male descendents of Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities, who is senior in age and he is entitled to function as a Trustee during his life time. Then, the Trust has been registered under Section 12A(a) of the Indian Income Tax Act on 02.07.1973. The accounts of the Trust Page No. 14 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 are duly audited and the Trust has been submitting to the Income Tax Returns regularly.
4.6. At the time of passing the Scheme Decree in the year 1934, the agricultural lands owned by the Trust were let out to various tenants and they were doing paddy cultivation in those lands. The rents received from the tenants were utilized for performing the charities under the Trust. Over the period of time, the irrigation source for the cultivation of lands ceased to exist, as a result of which paddy cultivation was not possible. Due to the afore-mentioned reasons, the income of the Trust got reduced. Hence, the Trust decided to sell certain portions of Trust properties by invoking clause 16 of Scheme Decree. Meanwhile, the Government has taken over a portion of Trust properties under the Minor Inam Abolition Act and certain lands were acquired under Land Acquisition Act. The land acquisition compensation was deposited into the credit of the scheme suit.
4.7. In continunace of the above, the Trustee had filed an application to sell some of the Trust lands in the scheme suit in O.S.No.13 of 1932 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. After calling for objections through paper publication and after satisfying the need to sell the portion of Trust properties, the Civil Court passed orders in the scheme suit, permitting sale. The Court had fixed Page No. 15 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the sale price and the sale proceeds were deposited directly into the credit of the scheme suit and in turn it was invested in the nationalized banks as per the direction of the scheme court. These amounts are treated as corpus of the Trust and the Trust is receiving the interest from the corpus amount and spending the same for performing the charities.
4.8. Under the Scheme Decree, the following charities ought to be performed regularly without any interruptions by the Trust:
• The existing Yajur Veda Patasala in which students are being fed clothed and taught shall continue to be maintained in the said mantapam, the feeding taking place in the said madapuli. The strength of the patasala shall not exceed six boys. • In addition to the recitation of the Veda now imparted to the students, a course of training may be given to the students in Dharma Sastras and Kavyas if funds permit.
• Not more than six deserving Brahmins (beside the said boys) shall continue to be fed in the said Madapuli once in the morning of every Dwadasi day.
• A watershed shall continue to be maintained in the said mantapam from Panguni to Vaikasi both inclusive during the hot period of the year.
• Archanas shall continue to be performed on every sukkruvaram and pradosham days to Sri Meenakshi and Sundareswarar in the Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai and on every somavaram day to Subramaniaswami in the temple at Tirupparankundram. On Mahasivaratri night and also on Navaratri nights special abisheka and archanas shall continue to be performed in Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai.Page No. 16 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 • To Mandahapadi celebrations in Sri Meenakshi and Sundareswara Temple shall be performed in the said mandapam every year (1) during the Chithra festival on the Tirukalyanam day known as and (ii) during Adi Molakottu Festival on the 8th day” 4.9. While being so, upon the complaint received from one A.Radhakrishnan on 30.04.2018, vide Petition No.F/52893/MU/2018 to the CM Grievance cell, claiming that the properties of Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities belongs to Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparamkundram and therefore, the properties have to be restored. The said complaint was forwarded from the Chief Minister's Grievance Cell to the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment and Charitable (hereinafter referred as 'H.R. & C.E'.), Madurai for taking further action. The officials of H.R.& C.E. issued a notice dated 04.09.2018 under Section 53 of Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act alleging that the Trust properties earmarked for performing religious charities were sold without prior permission of the Department. Based on the complaint received from one A.Radhakrishnan, H.R.& C.E. took action and removed the Hereditary Trustee of the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities hurriedly, on the ground that some of the Trust properties were dealt with, without following Section 34 of H.R.& C.E. Act.Page No. 17 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 4.10. Aggrieved over the same, the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities preferred an appeal in A.P.No.4 of 2019, before the Commissioner H.R.&C.E. and by order dated 05.09.2020, the appeal was allowed and order of Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Madurai was set aside. In view of the same, the case was remitted back to the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Madurai to hold a denova enquiry after affording opportunities to all the parties concerned by duly following provisions of H.R.&C.E. Act and Rules and the case is pending adjudication with the Joint Commissioner, H.R.&C.E., Madurai.
4.11. Meanwhile, the above said A.Radhakrishnan also filed a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred as 'P.I.L.') in W.P.(MD) No.22681 of 2018 seeking to restore the properties belonging to Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparamkundram from Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities, by way of considering his representation dated 30.04.2018. Another P.I.L. was filed by one S.P.Sonaisamy in W.P.(MD)No.4266 of 2020. This Court, vide its orders dated 28.06.2023 has passed the following orders in the respective writ petitions:- W.P.(MD) No.22681 of 2018
“2. We do not think such a prayer can be granted based on a unilateral report of the Tahsildar. The question as to whether these properties are dedicated or there is a charge over the properties has Page No. 18 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 to be decided only by a competent court having jurisdiction to go into the issue.
3. Hence, we do not find any justification to grant the prayer in the public interest litigation. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ” W.P.(MD)No.4266 of 2020:
“1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 9 to take appropriate action to recover the property in Old S.No.115/3B and New Survey No.78 of Sathamangalam, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District and restore the same in favour of the 8th respondent temple for fulfilling the katalais and other religious activities, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
2. We do not think such a prayer can be granted. Connected writ petition in W.P(MD)No.22681 of 2018 is dismissed today.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is also dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and work out his remedy."
4.12. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.22681 of 2018 & 4266 of 2020, the subsequent purchasers namely N.Jegatheesan and others who had purchased the property based on permission from the scheme court had filed W.P.(MD)No.26248 of 2022 inter alia praying for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the refusal slip and register the document. Page No. 19 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 Pending the aforesaid writ petitions the Trust had filed W.P.(MD) No.1445 of 2023 inter alia praying for Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering in the public charities, peaceful and enjoyment of properties by the trust and to remove the board kept by the authorities. Thereafter, the Hereditary Trustee had filed W.P.(MD)No.8643 of 2023 inter alia praying for Writ of Declaration declaring the disciplinary proceedings against the Hereditary Trustee as without jurisdiction and hence null and void and contrary to scheme decree. This Court, after hearing both sides, vide its orders dated 21.06.2024, allowed the writ petitions filed by the Trust. Aggrieved against the same, the Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparamkundram along with H.R. & C.E. Department have preferred the above writ appeals.
5. Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed the following submissions:-
5.1. The learned Additional Advocate General prefaced his arguments by stating that the trustees of the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities, created in the year 1842, only have the right to manage the properties and not the exclusive right to sell them. The original interlocutory order filed under O.S.No.13 of 1932 for Page No. 20 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the purpose of obtaining permission from the Scheme Court to sell the properties is considered "abinitio void".
5.2. The learned Additional Advocate General drew the attention of this Court to the case of A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that courts have a duty to protect the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims. He contended that the Sooravalli Subbaier Charities is a specific and religious endowment. They claim that any doubt about its nature requires adjudication by the competent authority under Section 63 (e) or (d) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department Act of 1959. The properties of the Trust are specified as "inalienable" in the Scheme Decree, and a Trustee cannot alienate their management rights. The Trust's accounts are to be audited annually, and the report is to be made public. The Scheme Decree also required the preparation of a copper plate grant of the lands to the charity and its deposit at the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple at Madurai, which has not been done till date.
5.3. He further stated that the properties are registered in the name of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthana Sooravalli Subbaier Trust, and a Page No. 21 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 "kattalai" (specific endowment) has been created in its name. The Trustees have been allegedly filing interim applications to get orders to sell properties without notifying the beneficiary temples. The appellants state that any alienation of religious institution property without the prior sanction of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is "abinitio void"
under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act.
5.4. Moreover, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that all alienations made by the Trustees are void, though they claim that it was pursuant to Civil Court permission. Further, such permissions were obtained behind the back of the Temples viz. Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple and Arulmigu Subramaniaswamy Temple, Thiruparankundram. The Scheme Decree framed by the Civil Court is for administration of the endowment and not for schemed sale of endowment properties. He further stated that the Scheme Decree does not provide for such sale of endowment properties. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, at any rate, after coming into force of Act 22 of 1959, there cannot be a Scheme Decree inconsistent with section 34 of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 enabling the sale of properties on Trustees' own or on Court's permission. Section 118 of Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959 makes it clear that any scheme framed prior to Act but Page No. 22 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 inconsistent with provisions of 1959 Act shall be void. Thus, the learned Additional Adovcate General submitted that the trustees cannot claim that the properties were sold only after obtaining scheme court's permission.
5.5. On receipt of complaint from one A.Radhakrishnan, regarding the misappropriation of funds and sale of Temple properties, the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madurai, has issued notice dated 12-06-2018 to the Trustees, calling upon to explain the allegations leveled against them. Enquiry notices were issued on 04.07.2018, 18.07.2018, .....09.2018, and 23.08.2018. In this regard, the Trustees have filed W.P.(MD).No.19295 of 2018 for forbearing the H.R. & C.E. Department from proceeding with the enquiry and this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn vide order dated
06.09.2018. Thereafter, the Trustees have replied on 02.07.2018 and 29.08.2018 and have appeared in person and have also given their statement.
5.6. Pending enquiry, the Joint Commissioner by proceedings dated 04-09-2018, suspended the trustees under section 53 (4) of Tamilnadu H.R. & C.E. Act and appointed a Fit Person to the Trust. The said proceedings dated 04-09-2018 has been challenged by the trustees by way of filing W.P.(MD).No. 19705 of 2018 before this Court. On the other hand, the trustees appeared before Page No. 23 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the Joint Commissioner for enquiry and gave their statements and objections. The Joint Commissioner after full-fledged enquiry had passed final orders Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.4350/2018/A4, dated 19.11.2018 under section 53 (2) of Tamilnadu H.R. & C.E. Act, dismissing the trustees. Recording the same, writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.19705 of 2018 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2018 with liberty to challenge the same in manner known to law.
5.7. Challenging the appointment of fit person, revision under Section 21 of the H.R. & C.E. Act in A.P.No.4/2019 was filed by the Trustees before the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Chennai. On the other hand, the fit person has assumed office and is functioning. Pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner dated 05-09-2020, the competent authority by proceedings dated 29-06-2022 had appointed the Deputy Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, as the fit person for the aforesaid Trust, in the place of the earlier fit person i.e. Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Koodal Azhagar Thirukoil.
5.8. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the fit person of Sooravali Subbier Trust and Beneficiary of Sooravalli Subbaier Trust, has been taking all earnest steps to retrieve the properties of the Trust and take action Page No. 24 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 against the Trustees, i.e. wrong doers and this bonafide act was questioned by the Trustee, whose trusteeship is still under suspension. He further submitted that Thirukalayana Mandahapadi was not conducted during the years 2020 and 2021 on account of COVID-19 pandemic. During the year 2022, the then Fit Person/Executive officer of Arulmighi Kodal Azhagar Peruma Kovil performed the said Mandahapadi. Subsequently, the appellant in W.A.(MD) NO.1334 of 2024 was replaced as Fit Person of the Trust vide proceedings dated 29.06.2022 of Joint Commissioner, H.R & C.E. Department, Madurai.
5.9. The appellant in W.A.(MD) No.1334 of 2024, after assuming charge as Fit Person, made arrangements to perform the said Mandahapadi for the year 2023 on 02.05.2023, wherein the previous Hereditary Trustee made a request to perform the said Thirukalayana Mandahapadi and the request was rejected by this appellant temple vide proceedings dated 15.04.2023. Against the said rejection, W.P.(MD).No.10015 of 2023 was preferred by the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Trust and this Court granted an order of interim injunction dated 25.04.2023 preventing this appellant temple from performing the said Mandahapadi. As against the interim order dated 25.04.2023, the appellant temple preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD).No.626 of 2023 before the Division Bench of this Court and this Court was pleased to grant an order of interim stay, based on which the appellant temple Page No. 25 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 conducted the Thirukalyana Mandahapadi as scheduled and the said writ petition subsequently disposed and writ appeal is closed as infructuous by the Division Bench vide order dated 14.06.2023.
5.10. The main contention of the learned Additional Advocate General is that the sale of properties made after the Court orders are abinitio void. After the year 1959 Act, the Scheme Court has no power to permit such sales. According to the learned Senior Counsel, only the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., could permit such sale. Therefore, any sale without the sanction of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., is null and void. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Writ Court, thereby allowing the Writ Appeals.
5.11. To substantiate his contentions, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) In Idol of Sree Ranganatha Sway rep. By its E.O. J.C. vs. P.K.Thoppulan Chettiar. Ramanuja Koodam, Anandhana Trust, rep. By its Managing Trustee and others, reported in (2020) 17 SCC 96 wherein the property dedicated as a specific endowment is considered as an integral part of the overall Temple endowment. As such, it cannot be sold without the express Page No. 26 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 sanction of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. And held that since the said property was a specific religious endowment, the Civil Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant permission for its sale;
(ii) K.S.Soundarajan and others Vs. the Commissioner HR&CE and others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 597 and submitted that any pooja to the deity would come within the definition of religious endowment.
6. Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in W.A.(MD) Nos.1955 & 1956 of 2024 made the following submissions:-
6.1. The Sooravalli Subbaier Charities was created in the year 1842 with an object of performing various religious and charitable activities. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Trust is a "Specific Religious Endowment" and that the trustees are running it contrary to its original purpose and the Scheme Decree. The original Scheme Decree states that the properties of the trust are inalienable, but the trustees have sold them by relying on permission from a civil court, which is claimed to lack jurisdiction. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the order of the Writ Court is unsustainable in both law and facts and should be set aside.
Page No. 27 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 6.2. The learned Additional Government Pleader further stated that the Trustees are not performing the specified charitable activities as outlined in the Scheme Decree, such as running a Yajur Veda Padasala, feeding Brahmins, and maintaining a watershed, etc. The trustees have also failed to keep an audit report in the mandapam (hall) for public inspection as required by the scheme. Moreover, the Trustees have failed to execute a copper plate grant of the lands to the temple and deposit it in the Karuvelam of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, as required by the scheme.
6.3. Furthermore, the judgment relied upon by the trustees, which states that a Vedapadasala is not connected with a temple, is not applicable because the scheme specifically states that the Vedapadasala should function within the mandapam inside the temple premises. It is the specific contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the civil court lacks jurisdiction to grant permission for the sale of the Trust's properties. If at all a civil court has jurisdiction to grant permission for the sale of the properties, then that court is bound to fix a minimum upset price based on the market value, which has not been done in the present case.
Page No. 28 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 6.4. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the said Sooravalli Subbaier Charities is a specific endowment with endowed properties created for conducting various kattalai's in Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Temple and Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Thiruparankundram. The revenue entries with regard to said lands endowed stands in the name of “Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthanam Sooravalli Subbaier Trust”. But the said temples were not parties to the said Scheme Decree suit. However, Kattalai stands in the name of “Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthanam Sooravalli Subbaier Trust” and the same has also been entered in the kattalai register of the Temple. However, the Trustees to the said endowment are dealing with the properties of the endowment as per their whims and fancies. The modus operandi of the Trustee is to induct someone as tenant in the Trust property and to file some application before scheme suit and get some order in their favour for the sale of properties to the same tenant as outright sale instead of selling in public auction in the guise of court order and thereby alienate them, without notice or impleading the Temples. The very applications and the orders passed there on are null and void, as section 34 of H.R.&C.E. Act contemplates that any alienation or encumbrance of properties of religious institutions which includes endowments, without prior sanction of Commissioner, H.R.&C.E. is abinitio void. Page No. 29 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 6.5. He also drew the attention of this Court to writ petition filed in W.P. (MD)No.14946 of 2014 filed by one Mrs.Regina Jeyapal is a classic example for the said induction of tenant practice. The subject matter properties of the said writ petition were S.F.No.173/1B which admeasures Acre 0, cent 34 and S.F.No.174 which admeasures Acre 1, cent 04 situated in Tallakulam village, Madurai North Taluk. In the year 1968, those properties were leased to one Mr.Santhanam, who was a cultivating tenant recorded under R.T.R Act. Later he relinquished his right of tenancy under release deeds dated 24.09.1984. The said deeds were attested by his sons who were the appellants before Special Deputy Collector in A.P.No.12 of 2007. The execution of the above deed of release was presented before the tenancy record officer and he in his proceedings in T.R.No.5/1985 held on enquiry and recorded the petitioner of the aforementioned writ petition as a cultivating tenant. After a lapse of years in the year 2004, in T.R.No.39 of 2004 with the prayer to record their names as tenants. The record officer dismissed the petition on 20.04.2007. Aggrieved party preferred an appeal before the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai in A.P.No.12 of 2007 and the appeal was allowed and the writ petitioner of aforementioned writ petition Regina Jayapal preferred a revision in R.P.No.58433 of 2013/G3 before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and the revision petition was dismissed. Page No. 30 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 6.6. After the transfer of tenancy from Santhanam to Regina Jayapal, the trustees of the Sooravalli Subbaier Kattalai filed I.A.No.454 of 1985 in O.S.No.13 of 1932 in the Second Additional Sub Court, Madurai to sell the subject matter properties thereunder to Regina Jayapal. It is evident from the narration that the trustees induct one as tenant and later on they would file an interim application in the scheme suit and get permission to outright sale of the trust property to the tenant himself. The property of religious and charitable endowments or institutions ought to be protected since it is beneficial for public. Even for selling the land, fixing of reserve price ought to be based on market value. But all properties were sold against this dictum and the Civil Court also failed to follow the said dictum, hence the sale which are not through public auction liable to be set aside. Even if the property ought to be leased out, the Trust ought to lease through public auction, but the trust had not followed the same.
6.7. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the lands belonging to the Trust are absolutely dedicated for the performance of Religious Charities attached to the deities of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar temple, Madurai and Arulmigu Subramania Swamy Temple, Tirupparankundram. Hence, the endowment is coming within the definition of Section 6(17), Section 6(18), Section 6(19) and the sale is against Section 34 of HR&CE Act and all the Page No. 31 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 alienations are void, though it is claimed that it was pursuant to Civil Court permission. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that such permissions were obtained behind the back of the temple Authorities. The Scheme Decree framed by the Civil Court is for administration of the endowment and not for schemed sale of endowment properties. Scheme Decree does not and cannot provide for such sale of endowment properties. After coming into force of Act 22 of 1959, there cannot be a Scheme inconsistent with section 34 of H.R.& C.E. Act, 1959 enabling sale of properties on trustees' own wish or on Court's permission. Section 118 of H.R. & C.E. Act makes it clear that any scheme framed prior to Act but inconsistent with provisions of 1959 Act shall be void. Thus, the trustees cannot claim that they sold the property scheme court permission. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader prayed for allowing the writ appeals.
7. Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Trust, countenanced the arguments made by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, by way of the following submissions:-
Page No. 32 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 7.1. The appeals filed by the temples viz. Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple & Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy, Tiruparamkundram, Madurai and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (H.R. & C.E.) are directly against the Scheme Decree granted in O.S.No.13 of 1932, dated 06.09.1933. Having erroneously assumed jurisdiction as if the charities were governed under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, the appellants have preferred the appeals before this Court, which is not maintainable. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the properties of the Trust are never divested and the Scheme Decree pertaining to charitable endowment is binding on the appellants.
7.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellants have not made any prima facie ground. The appellants have proceeded with the filing of appeals as if they were the owners of the properties in question. The appellants herein have re-argued the case once again by citing the same contentions they have raised, while filing the public interest litigation filed in W.P.(MD).No.22681 of 2018.
7.3. While the matters are being so, a news item was published in “Daily Thanthi” newspaper on 11.11.2022 as if the properties worth about Rs.50 crores Page No. 33 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 belonging to the Trust had been retrieved by the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department. Further a notice board has been placed in front of the properties belonging to the Trust by claiming that the same is placed by the Thakkar of Sree Sooravalli Subbier Charities and further claimed that action would be taken under section 79(B)(3) of HR&CE, Act 1959. According to the learned Senior Counsel, when the matter has not yet attained finality, the act of the Temple in placing such notice board before the properties of the Trust, is a serious act of interference. Now by taking law into their own hands and without even following any due process of law, the Temple authorities and H.R.& C.E. Department have unilaterally claimed that the Trust properties belong to the Department and have gone to the extent of circulating news item and placing a board as if the properties belong to the Department, which is directly infringing the right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India.
7.4. Moreover, while the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department removed the Trustee from the post of Hereditary Trusteeship, based on an anonymous complaint given by one A.Radhakrishnan, the H.R. & C.E. Department has appointed the Executive Officer, Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, Madurai City – 625 001 as Thakkar of the Trust. But the removal order was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner by remitting the matter back to Page No. 34 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the Joint Commissioner with a direction to conduct denova enquiry. The suspension order dated 04.09.2018 merged with the final order dated 19.11.2018.
Ultimately, the order of the H.R.& CE department was set aside in A.P.No.4 of 2019. Further the Executive Officer, Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, appointed as new Thakkar did not take charge as Thakkar. The Trustee from Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities has been continuing as Hereditary Trustee and performing all the charities as it was done earlier. Hence, the high handed act of the Executive Officer, Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, who was appointed as new Thakkar claiming that the properties belonging to the Trust are the properties of the H.R. & C.E. Department and they have retrieved the same from the Trust are all contrary to the provisions of H.R.&C.E. Act. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Executive Officer, Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, who was appointed as new Thakkar cannot unilaterally take law into his own hands and claim that he has taken over the trust properties, and threatening of the invocation of penal provisions under section 79-B of the Act, which are governed by the scheme decree of the Civil Court.
7.5. As admitted, the Trust is the public trust governed by the Scheme Decree dated 06.09.1934 passed in O.S.No.13 of 1932 on the file of Subordinate Court, Madurai. The performance of public charities, the water pandal, the Page No. 35 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 archaanas, the mandagapadis in Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple as well are being performed without any interruption. Based on some frivolous complaints, the H.R. & C.E. passed orders removing the hereditary trustee without conducting enquiry and alleged that the properties were alienated without permission from the Department. But the fact remains that by invoking clause 16 of the Scheme Decree, applications were filed in the scheme suit and portion of trust properties were sold after getting prior permission of scheme court. Further, the Scheme Court ordered sale as per the price fixed by it and directed the entire sale proceeds to deposit into the credit of scheme suit, with the further direction the same will remain as corpus of the Trust. Only from and out of the corpus lying in the form of fixed deposit in the Nationalized banks the charities are being performed. The accounts of the Trust are duly audited and income tax returns are being filed regularly. Therefore, there is absolutely no allegation of mismanagement and maladministration.
7.6. Most of the objects of the Trust are public charitable nature. The religious charities like performance of Archana and Mandagapadies in the temples as desired by writ petitioner's ancestors and as directed under the scheme decree are being performed without interruption. Even after coming into force of H.R&C.E. Act, the Trust is allowed to perform the same under the scheme decree. Page No. 36 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 But without following the enquiry rules, the Trustee of Sree Suravalli Subbier Charities was dismissed from the post of Hereditary Trusteeship, which order was rightly set aside and now pending on remand order.
7.7. The properties belong to Public Charitable Trust, which is governed by the scheme decree. The Executive Officer, Sree Koodal Alagar Perumal Temple, who was initially appointed as new Thakkar, cannot unilaterally claim as if he is the Thakkar of Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities. The Temple authorities and H.R.& C.E. Department are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the trust properties. Hence, the Trust had filed writ of Mandamus in W.P.(MD)No.1445 of 2023 forbearing the respondents by taking law into their own hands and by interfering with the performance of various charities and enjoyment of properties of the Trust measuring about 0.20.78 hectares (Approximately 49.4 Cents) situated at Ward 16, Block 36. 75641 Talakulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District as per the Scheme Decree dated 06.09.1934 passed in O.S.13 of 1932 on the file of Sub Court, Madurai without following due process of law and consequently to direct to remove the notice board.
Page No. 37 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 7.8. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the Trustees, the Scheme decree from a Civil Suit (O.S. No. 13 of 1932) filed in 1932, which was decreed in 1934, passed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), is binding on the appellants as it is a judgment in rem. The appellants have not taken legal steps to modify or annul the above said decree. The Scheme decree asserts that the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act is not applicable to this Trust because of its composite nature. The decree also specified the succession of trustees, vesting the right of management in the senior-aged male descendant of Sooravalli Subbaier. The learned Senior Counsel drew reference to the judgment in the case of R.Murali & other vs. Kanyaka Devasthanam and charities & others in Civil Appeal Nos.4467 of 2005 dated 25.07.2005 reported in 2005 (6) SCC 166, wherein it has been held that when the Trust is carrying on multifarious activities of religious and charitable nature, the civil suit framing scheme under Section 92 CPC is maintainable. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
“18. The Division Bench of the High Court also went wrong in holding that the decree granted by the City Civil Court in the year 1976 in favour of the respondents is contrary to Section 64 of the Tamil Nadu Act. We have examined the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act. The Institution under consideration is carrying multifarious activities of religious and charitable nature. It is not purely a "Hindu Page No. 38 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 religious institution or endowment". It is also a "charitable endowment" as defined in clause (5) and "religious charity under the definition in clause (16) of Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Act.” 7.9. The learned Senior Counsel asserted that the Scheme Decree clarified that the Trust's properties were never dedicated or endowed to the Temple. The properties remain vested with the trustees alone. The properties in question are only impressed with a charge or obligation to perform the specified charities from their income. A minor portion of the trust's income is used for these charities, and therefore, the properties are merely "burdened with an obligation" rather than being fully dedicated to the charity. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the appellants are making a false claim that the properties belong to the Temple, ignoring the binding scheme decree. It is also pertinent to note that the appellants cannot assume jurisdiction over the Trust's properties until a competent civil court decides on the matter of dedication.
7.10. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously argued that the Trust in question, viz. the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities, does not fall under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu H.R.& C.E. Act, 1959. He argued that the exclusion of Section 92 CPC by the Act only applies when the entire object of a trust is religious. Since the Sooravalli Subbaier Trust is a composite one, the Civil Page No. 39 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 Court's decree is valid. The Scheme Decree also refutes the applicability of other sections of the Act, such as Section 34, which requires the property to "belong to, or be given or endowed for the purpose of any religious institution". Additionally, the proceedings initiated under Section 53 are deemed "wholly without jurisdiction" since the Act itself does not apply to the Trust. The Scheme Decree also holds that the performance of the charities, such as Abhishegam and Archana, are not "religious charity" as defined by the Act because they are not public in nature.
7.11. The learned Senior Counsel explicitly stated that the order of the Writ Court answers to the question of whether the properties were dedicated or whether there is a charge on them, and the same must be decided by a competent Civil Court, as the appellants have no jurisdiction to assume this on their own.
The Scheme Decree from the year 1934 is a "judgment in rem" and remains binding on the appellants. While the right of management of the Trust and its properties is vested in a male descendant of Sree Sooravalli Subbaier has been clearly stated in the Scheme Decree and there has been no dedication of property to the temples; thereby ensuring that the properties remain with the Trustees, and the trust's activities are a mix of religious and charitable purposes, making the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act inapplicable.
Page No. 40 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 7.12. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Trust's religious acts, such as performing Archana, Abishegam, and Mandagapadi, are personal and for the benefit of the trustee's family, and not for the temple. The secular activities, which are public charities, include running a Veda Padasala, feeding Brahmins, and operating a water shed during the summer. These charitable activities are not considered religious endowments or charities under the Tamil Nadu H.R. & C.E. Act, as they are not associated with a Hindu festival or religious observance. The learned Senior Counsel also made it very clear that the major portion of the trust's income is spent on these public charities. Therefore, the claim raised by the appellants against the orders of the Writ Court deserves no consideration and therefore, liable to be dismissed, thereby confirming the orders of the Writ Court.
7.13. To substantiate the case of the respondents, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) M.Ar.Rm. M. Annamalai Chettiar and others Vs Al.A.C.T. Solaiyappa Chettiar and another in civil revision petition No.1096 of 1934 dated 16-01-1935, reported in 1935 SCC online Mad 9 wherein it has been held that functioning of Vedapadasala, unconnected with the Temple, though a religious purpose is outside the purview of the Act.
Page No. 41 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
(ii) Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (A) Department., Madras & another vs. S.Ramasamy Iyer and others in Appeal No.546 of 1988 dated 25.10.2000 reported in 2001(2) Law Weekly 654 wherein it has been held that feeding brahmins is no way connected with any festival conducted by Temple. It is not a religious endowment or religious charity.
(iii) State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Madras & another vs. T.S.Venkataswami Naidu in W.A.No.580 of 1970 dated 05.03.1991 reported in 1992 (1) Law Weekly 569 and Vol 82 Law Weekly 580 wherein it has been held that running water sheds during the hot months are all not associated with any religious festival and it is not meant for Hindus alone. These public charities are governed by the scheme Decree passed under Section 92 of C.P.C.
(iv) Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddy and another vs. Duddukuru Subbarao and others in Civil Appeal No.185 of 1952 dated 10.05.1957 reported in AIR 1957 Supreme Court 797 held that the true intent of the document has to be considered as a whole to ascertain whether there was dedication or charge and further held that each case must be considered on its facts. Herein the present case on hand, the properties of Suravalli Subbier Trust has been vested with the male agnate members of Suravalli Subbier family with a direction to him to continue to perform certain charities. Only a minor portion of the income of the properties of Page No. 42 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the Trust are required to be used for charity and hence the properties are merely burdened with an obligation in favour of the charity.
7.14. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel wrapped up his submissions by stating that the performance of Archanas, Abhishekam and Mandagapadi on certain days at temples are all personal and it is for the welfare of the Trustee's family and descendants, which is only a pious wish of the forefathers of Trustee's family. It is a well settled principle that an endowment for the conduct of such worship cannot be a specific endowment as it is in no way connected with a temple or any of its principal festivals, which certainly denotes the fact that it is not for the benefit of the public, but is intended for the persons offering worship.
8. Heard the rival submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Trust and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. The primary contention of the appellants is that the petitioner cannot claim himself as hereditary trustee since he was suspended, thereafter dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same Page No. 43 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 was remanded for denovo enquiry and the same is pending. Further the proceedings to dismiss the trustee, has nothing to do with the appointment of Fit Person, who was appointed prior to dismissal proceedings and moreover, the appointment of fit person was not challenged. This Court proceeded to consider the said plea raised by the appellant. It is seen that the Executive Officer / Assistant Commissioner of Arulmigu Koodal Azhagar Temple was appointed as Fit Person on 04.09.2018 and thereafter on 29.06.2022 Deputy Commissioner / Executive Officer of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple was appointed as Fit Person. Further it is seen that the petitioner had filed four writ petitions. Except W.P.(MD)No.10015/2023 (filed seeking permission to conduct Mandagapadi) the other three writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos.1445, 8643 and 21329 of 2023 are filed praying not to interfere in the administration of the trust properties, not to interfere with the affairs of the trust and to declare the dismissal from the post of Hereditary Trusteeship in proceedings in M.P.No.4350/2018 as null and void and without jurisdiction. When the petitioner had filed the petition not to interfere in the affairs of the Trust, then the same is sufficient to consider the appointment of fit person also, since the Fit Person is managing the affairs / administration of the Trust. Moreover, when the petitioner had raised jurisdiction issue while challenging the proceedings of dismissal from trusteeship, then the same is sufficient to hold that the petitioner had challenged the appointment of Fit Page No. 44 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 Person also. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellants is incorrect and the same is rejected.
10. The next contention of the appellant is that the issue is not barred by the principles of res judicata, hence the order passed by the Writ Court holding that the issue is barred by res judicata is erroneous. Moreover, the order was passed in Public Interest Litigation and hence the same will not come under the principles of res judicata. On the other hand, the writ petitioner submitted that the issue is barred by res judicata, since the appellants had contested the PIL by filing counter. In order to consider the issue some facts are necessary. It is seen that the one A.Radhakrishnan had submitted a representation dated 30.04.2018 alleging that the Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities was created to do charities for the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, but the trustees had illegally sold some of the properties, hence prayed to take action against the trustees. Based on the representation and as per the direction of the District Collector, the Tahsildar had conducted enquiry after giving opportunity to the said A.Radhakrishnan who had filed the P.I.L. and had come to the conclusion that the said Trust is created by endowing the properties to Meenakshi Temple, then immediately issued direction to all the authorities not to register further documents, not to grant plan approval, not to grant electricity connection etc. It is pertinent to mention here that the said Page No. 45 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 enquiry was conducted by calling A.Radhakrishnan alone but not the trustees at all. Thereafter, no further progress in the enquiry. Hence, W.P.(MD)No.22681 of 2018 was filed by the said A.Radhakrishnan with the averments as stated in the representation. In the said case the Meenakshi Temple was arrayed as 18 th respondent and the Executive Officer / Joint Commissioner had filed detailed counter and the said counter is verbatim same as the counter filed in W.P. (MD)No.1445 of 2023. In the counter filed in the P.I.L., the Meenakshi Temple had taken the stand, rather supported the stand of the said A.Radhakrishnan and contested the case. It is after hearing the rival submissions, the Division Bench had held that the issue cannot be considered based on the unilateral report of the Tahsildar and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“2. We do not think such a prayer can be granted based on the unilateral report of the Tahsildar. The question as to whether these properties are dedicated or there is a charge over the properties has to be decided only by the competent court having jurisdiction to go into the issue.
3. Hence, we do not find any justification to grant the prayer in the public interest litigation. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.”
11. Based on the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed. Now in the present writ petitions also, the core issue is whether the properties of the Trust are dedicated to the Temple or there is a charge over the properties. When the said issue has already been considered by the Court in W.P.(MD)No. 22681 of 2018 vide order dated 28.06.2023 between the same parties namely the Page No. 46 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 Meenakshi Temple Vs Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities, then the same issue cannot be raised again which is barred by res judicata. This finding is supported by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and another Vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683 wherein it is held as under:
"32. Res Judicata Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa ("No one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause" ) and second, public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation . It is well settled that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "the CPC") is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the Section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to re- agitate the matter again and again. Section 11 of the CPC recognises this principle and forbids a court from trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognising both 'cause of action estoppel' and 'issue estoppel'. There are two issues that we need to consider, one, whether the doctrine of res judicata, as a matter of principle, can be applied to Public Interest Litigations and second, whether the issues and findings in Somashekar Reddy (supra) constitute res judicata for the present litigation.
33. Explanation VI to Section 11 states:
"Explanation VI. Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all Page No. 47 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating."
34. Explanation VI came up for consideration before this Court in Forward Construction Co. and Ors. v. Prabhat Mandal and Ors.(hereinafter "Forward Construction Co."). This Court held that in view of Explanation VI, it could not be disputed that Section 11 applies to Public Interest Litigation, as long as it is shown that the previous litigation was in public interest and not by way of private grievance. Further, the previous litigation has to be a bona fide litigation in respect of a right which is common and is agitated in common with others.
35. As a matter of fact, in a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner is not agitating his individual rights but represents the public at large. As long as the litigation is bona fide, a judgment in a previous Public Interest Litigation would be a judgment in rem. It binds the public at large and bars any member of the public from coming forward before the court and raising any connected issue or an issue, which had been raised/should have been raised on an earlier occasion by way of a Public Interest Litigation. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner in Somashekar Reddy (supra) was acting bona fide. Further, we may note that, as a retired Chief Engineer, Somashekar Reddy had the special technical expertise to impugn the Project on the grounds that he did and so, he cannot be dismissed as a busybody. Thus, we are satisfied in principle that Somashekar Reddy (supra), as a Public Interest Litigation, could bar the present litigation."
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that if the P.I.L. was genuine and the issue was considered by the Court, then the same would act as res judicata. In Page No. 48 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the present case, the P.I.L. was filed by the petitioner thereunder with all seriousness and he cannot be considered as busybody. The Temple had vehemently contested the case by filing counter and made submissions on behalf of the temple. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the same parties and considered by the Court would act as res judicata and consequently, this Court confirms the question as to whether the properties are dedicated to temple or there is a charge over the properties has to be decided only by the competent court having jurisdiction to go into the issue and the findings of the Writ Court in this regard stands confirmed.
13. Having held so, this Court is also of the considered opinion that prima facie the charities stated in the scheme decree would not come as dedicated to the temple. Since the charities as narrated in the scheme are the charities / issues already considered in several judgments. In order to consider the same, the list of charities is listed hereunder:
5. The existing Yajur Veda Patasala in which students are being fed clothed and taught shall continue to be maintained in the said mantapam, the feeding taking place in the said madapuli. The strength of the patasala shall not exceed six boys.
6. In addition to the recitation of the Veda now imparted to the students, a course of training may be given to the students in Dharma Sastras and Kavyas if funds permit.
Page No. 49 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
7. Not more than six deserving Brahmins (beside the said boys) shall continue to be fed in the said Madapuli once in the morning of every Dwadasi day.
8. A watershed shall continue to be maintained in the said mantapam from Panguni to Vaikasi both inclusive during the hot period of the year.
9. Archanas shall continue to be performed on every sukkruvaram and pradosham days to Sri Meenakshi and Sundareswarar in the Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai and on every somavaram day to Subramaniaswami in the temple at Tirupparankundram. On Mahasivaratri night and also on Navaratri nights special abisheka and archanas shall continue to be performed in Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai.
10. To Mandahapadi celebrations in Sri Meenakshi and Sundareswara Temple shall be performed in the said mandapam every year (1) during the Chithra festival on the Tirukalyanam day known as and (ii) during Adi Molakottu Festival on the 8th day known as”
14. The charities of teaching Veda and Dharma Sastras etc. to the students studying in Veda Padasala and feeding them and providing cloths to them are nothing to do with the temple. It is independent of any festival conducted in the Temple. Hence, the said charities will not come within the purview of endowment of properties to temple but it is charge over the properties. Hence, the charities narrated in clauses 5 and 6 are not endowed to the temple and not coming within the purview of H.R.&C.E. Act.
Page No. 50 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
15. Under clause 7, the charity stated is feeding six Brahmins on Dwadesi day. The Dwadesi day is twelfth day from Amavasai and Pournami, which comes monthly two days. This charity is also nothing to do with temple and not connected to any festival of the temple. Under clause 8, the charity is placing Thanneer Pandal (water shed) during the Tamil months of Panguni to Vaikasi both inclusive during the hot period of the year. Panguni month is from 15 th March to 14th April, Chitirai month is from 15th April to 14th May and Vaikashi month is from 15th May to 14th June which is considered as hot months of the year. Again, this is not connected to any festival of the temple. Under clause 9, the charity is to perform Archanas on every sukkruvaram (i.e. Friday) and Pradosham days to Sri Meenakshi and Sundareswarar in the Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai and on every somavaram day (i.e. Monday) to Subramaniaswami in the temple at Tirupparankundram. On Mahasivaratri night and also on Navaratri nights special Abisheka and Archanas shall continue to be performed in Sri Meenakshi Temple at Madurai. It is settled proposition that Archanas and Abishekams are private service of the doer, even if general public is participating during Archanas and Abishekams along with the donor will not make the same as endowment to the Temple.
Page No. 51 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
16. The issue is already considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR.Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. the Commissioner, HR&CE and other reported in 1977 SCC OnLine Mad 14 : (1978) 91 LW 337 and the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“11. … From the above definitions it is seen that every endowment made by a donor may not squarely come within its meaning. It should be clear either by express dedication or by necessary implication that a particular property has been given for the performance of any service of a public nature connected with a temple. Such giving or endowing the property for the performance of any service or charity in a temple, etc., should be apparent from the evidence let in a particular case. It cannot be a matter of assumption or presumption unless by a course of conduct for years such inference is possible. Further, the property should have been given for the performance of any service of a public nature connected with the temple. In the instant case, the evidence is that the endowment is not to any particular temple. It is for the performance of abhishekam in the Siva temples in the country. Obviously therefore, it bristles with vagueness. The choice is left to the trustees for the time being of the endowment to choose the temple. The temple authorities are not even informed of such a performance of service. The fund is controlled by the trustees and the abishekam is performed in the name and Jenma Nakshathiram of the donor and the members of their family. The temple authorities cannot enforce the performance of the service because they are unaware of the fact whether in one particular temple such abishekam is going to be performed at all during the Mahasivarathi day. We have already summarised the modus operandi adopted by the trustees. Even contributions collected by them are Page No. 52 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 credited in their books of account and it became merged with the personal fund. Even otherwise the contributions according to Ex. A-4 must have been done years ago. There is no evidence that such contributions are flowing into the fund continuously year after year. The fund is identifiable in the light of the evidence as the fund of the author of the trust. Not only the trustees have control over the fund, they do not part with the possession of either the corpus or the income. They send various amounts to persons known to them, for the performance of abishekam and archanai in a Siva temple of their choice and the Archanai is performed in the name of the Chettiar and Vibudhi prasadam was received only by the representative of the trustee. Thereafter the prasadam is distributed to persons who are known to Arunachalam Chettiar and related to him. The person, who is deputed to perform the Abhishekam has to render an account. All these features which formed the foundation of the so-called endowments clearly indicate that it is a private endowment in the sense that it is a fund created by late Arunachala Chettiar and administered by his successors according to their choice and whim without being controlled by any extraneous authority.
12..
16. From the documentary evidence let in, which as we said remains uncontradicted, we gather the impression that the persons to administer the trust are definite and ascertained individuals belonging to the family of the donor and they are vested with the discretion to utilise the fund for performing the Abhishekam in any Siva temple of their choice. This solitary element would not make it a public endowment. Endowment in question examined through lens of Hindu notion certainly revolves round a religious ceremony. Who are the beneficiaries of the service is the question. It is not uncommon for Hindus to be present at the time of Abishekam in a temple, though they have nothing to do with it in the Page No. 53 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 sense that they did not provide any material for the purpose of the Abhishekam. It is equally not uncommon for individual donors performing such Abhishekam for their personal benefit. Even such Abishekams are witnessed by the public along with the donor or his representative. Such a participation by the public in the course of the performance of a private service in a public temple would not make the service or the fund which prompts the making of such service a religious endowment or a specific endowment. In the light of the above decisions, we are unable to accept the unexplained verdict of the learned Subordinate Judge that the said trust is a religious endowment and not a private trust."
17. From the above judgment, it is evident that performing Archanas and Abishekams are of two ways. One performed by the Temple itself and the other performed on request of individuals. If the Archanas and Abishekams are performed by individuals from the income of the properties, then the same cannot be stated that the property is endowed to the temple but it is a charge created on the properties. From the conditions of Scheme Decree it is evident that there is charge over the property and the relevant content of the scheme decree is extracted hereunder:
(i) Right of management of trust and its properties are vested with the agnatic male descendent;
(ii) The income of 3 ½ acres of the endowed property in Tallakulam Village have been allotted as remuneration to the trustee for management;Page No. 54 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
(iii) The income of the remaining properties shall be utilised entirely for the maintenance of the trust and its purposes;
(iv) To teach Dharma Sastras and Kavyas, if funds permit;
(v) To perform the archanas and abhishekams on every Friday and Pradosham to Meenakshi and Sundareswarar in Meenakshi temple;
(vi) To perform the archanas and abhishekams on every Monday to Subramaniaswami in the temple at Tirupparankundram;
(vii) After doing the above expenses, if any surplus fund is available, then the trustee shall carry out maramathu (repair works) and improvement of the trust properties and next for the creation of a reserve fund.
18. All the above conditions in the Scheme Decree clearly indicates that there is charge over the properties, especially the direction to teach Dharma Sastras and Kavyas, if excess fund is available, and the direction to use the surplus fund for doing repairs works and improving of properties, and if further fund is available, then to create reserve fund. From the said condition it is evident that there is no religious endowment as claimed by the appellants.
19. The appellants had relied on K.S.Soundarajan and others Vs. the Commissioner HR&CE and others reported in (2016) 15 SCC 597. On perusing Page No. 55 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 the above judgment, it is seen in the said case the endowment was created to conduct pooja to the said deity during Panguni festival and supply food to the caste people and another ritual to conduct pooja during Chitra Pournami when Kallalagar is entering Vaigai river and supply food to general public. When the endowment was created for conducting religious function during the festival of the temple like Kallalagar entering Vaigai and supply food for general public, in such circumstances, it was held that the same is religious endowment. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“5. Provision is made in the Will for the performance of following charities:
“1) During Panguni festival at Thirupparankundram every year according to income supplying of food to the people of our own caste and performing poojas and neivadhiyam to Swami without fail.
2) Also every year on Chitra Pournami when Kallalagar entering into Vaigai River and going to Vandiur, supplying of food called Arasa.”
6. The Presiding Deity of the temple at Thirupparankundram is Subramaniaswami and the performance of Neivedyam and Pooja to the said Swami during festival mentioned as first charity is clearly a service to be rendered to the Deity in the Temple. Supply of food on Chitra Pournami day every year has to be done when God Kallalagar is taken in procession through the Vaigai river on way to Vandiur, is the second charity mentioned in the Will. It is necessary to refer at this stage to some of the relevant provisions of the Act. “Religious institution” has been defined in Section 6(18) as meaning a math, temple or specific endowment.
“Specific endowment” in Section 6(19) reads thus: “any property or Page No. 56 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to Clause (17)”. “Religious charity” is defined in Section 6(16) as meaning a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not. “Religious endowment” or “endowment” has been defined in Section 6(17) to mean all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity, and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof but does not include gifts or property made as personal gifts to the Archaka, Service holder or other employee of a religious institution.” Whereas, in the present case, it is evident from the scheme decree that the family is conducting pooja like Archanas and Abishekams for themselves and not for the public. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
20. As held in Ramanathan Chettiar’s case stated supra, the endowment cannot be examined through lens of Hindu notion, since every action is considered as religious ceremony in Hindu notion. The song in Abirami Andhadhi it is stated “consciously thinking of god while standing, sitting, sleeping, walking” is also considered as offering to god. The relevant song is given below: Page No. 57 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 “epd;Wk; ,Ue;Jk; fple;Jk; ele;Jk; epidg;gJd;id vd;Wk; tzq;FtJ cd; kyh;j; jhs;; vOjhkiwapd;
xd;Wk; mUk;nghUNs mUNs cikNa ,kaj;J md;Wk; gpwe;jtNs mopah Kj;jp Mde;jNk”
21. Hence, the observations in Ramanathan’s case stated supra that “it is not uncommon for Hindus to be present at the time of Abishekam in a temple, though they have nothing to do with it in the sense that they did not provide any material for the purpose of the Abhishekam. It is equally not uncommon for individual donors performing such Abhishekam for their personal benefit. Even such Abishekams are witnessed by the public along with the donor or his representative. Such a participation by the public in the course of the performance of a private service in a public temple would not make the service or the fund which prompts the making of such service a religious endowment or a specific endowment.” Hence, it is to be seen who are the beneficiaries of the service is the question. In the present case, it is the trustee and their family, who are the beneficiaries of the Arachanas and Abishekams as per the Scheme Decree. Hence, it cannot be stated that the properties are endowed to the Temple, as alleged by the appellants.
22. Under clause 10, which is the last charity, is to perform two Mandagapadi celebration during Chitra Festival on Thirukalyana day and during Page No. 58 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 Aadi Mulaikottu Festival on the 8th day, every year. As far as conducting Mandagapadi is concerned the same is already dealt with and settled in the case of Sri Kallalagar Soundaraja Perumal Chitra Poornami Mandakapadi Trust, through its Hereditary Trustees, Muthiah Konar and another vs. Maruthamalai Ambalam, reported in 1959 (72) LW 646 wherein it is held that the property endowed for mandagapadi cannot be considered as public endowment, since the mandagapadi is not integral part of Festival of the temple. The relevant portion is extracted here under:-
“Before considering that question it is necessary to refer to a contention raised on behalf of the appellants by Mr.T.R.Srinivasan. He contended that the trust created by Ex.A.1 was a public trust. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the trust was only private in character. Under Ex.A.1 provision is made for the construction of a mandapam on a property of the donor and a mandagappadi was directed to be performed to Sri. Soundararaja Perumal during the time of the festival of the temple. The mandagappadi is not an integral part of the Chitrapournami Festival of the temple which is being conducted every year on the sands of the Vaigai. It is in no way connected with it. The occasion of that festival is taken advantage of to perform the worship under the trust when the Deity would be on its way to or from the temple to Madurai for the festival. Such worship which is familiarly known as Mandagappadi is common in our country. The Deity is invited to stop a while and worship is offered at places where the devotees want to worship it. An endowment for the conduct of such worship cannot be a specific endowment as it is in no way connected with the temple or any of its Page No. 59 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 principal festivals. It is intended only for the benefit of the persons offering worship. Such an endowment being neither for the public nor for the performance of any recognized puja or festival of the temple. In Deoki Nandun V. Muralidhar (1) reported in AIR 1957 SCR 133, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a private trust the beneficiaries would be specific individuals while in the case of a public endowment it would be the general public or a class thereof. In the present case, there is no difficulty in finding that the intention of the donor was to secure spiritual benefit to Mooka Konar and his family. I am of opinion that the conclusion of the lower Court that the trust is a private one is correct”.
23. In the above case, one Mooka Konar had created the endowment for Mandagapadi of Kallazhagar and while considering the same the Hon’ble Court had held that the concept of Mandagapadi is unique and it is generally practiced in our country and especially in Tamil Nadu. In Mandagapadi, the deity is invited to stop a while and worship is offered at places where the devotees want to worship it. For carrying out such worship, a specific endowment is created and it is in no way connected with the temple or any of its principal festivals. In the present case, the deity is invited on the Thirukalyanam Day and on 8th day of Tamil Aadi month during Aadi Mulaikottu Festival and offerings were given to the deity. Therefore, the Mandagapadi for Thirukalyanam Day and Aadi Mulaikottu Festival cannot be considered as endowment to the temple as held in the Kallalagar’s case. Page No. 60 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
24. This Court has held that the charities detailed above are only charge over the trust properties and not endowment to the Temple. Therefore, the appellants are not having jurisdiction to appoint Fit Person and is not having jurisdiction to proceed further under Section 53 of H.R.& C.E. Act.
25. Though this Court has held that the properties of Sree Sooravalli Subbaier Charities are not dedicated to the temple, but are only subject to a charge, such observation is merely a prima facie finding. Moreover, the finding has been rendered only for the limited purpose of examining whether the appellants can be permitted to interfere in the administration of the trust properties and its affairs. It is clarified that if any civil suit is instituted, the same shall be adjudicated by the competent court having jurisdiction, independently and uninfluenced by the present order. If it is charge created on the properties, then the Trustees are entitled to deal with the trust properties. Of course, while dealing with the Trust properties, the Trust ought to obtain prior permission from the competent civil court.
26. At this juncture, it is pertinent to state that in the counter the appellants have stated that it ought to be seen whether the scheme judgment and decree is in consonance with the endowment. Such contention questioning the scheme decree Page No. 61 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 ought to be outrightly rejected. If allowed, it would amount to allowing the HR&CE authorities to sit on the judgments and decrees passed by competent civil courts. Further, it would unsettle the judgments and decrees, it would end in complete chaos, besides being interference in the independence of judiciary.
27. A feeble attempt was made by the appellants that the revenue entries with regard to lands endowed to religious charities stands in the name of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswar Devasthanam Sooravalli Subbaier Trust, hence the same belongs to the temples. The said contention is totally against the scheme decree, since in the scheme decree it has been specifically directed under clause (17) the properties shall stand in the name of “Suravalli Charities” and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“17. The endowed properties of the Trust shall be entered in the revenue and municipal registers in the name of Suravalli Charities represented by the trustee” Therefore, the plea of the appellants is totally against the scheme decree. If there is any such entry as claimed by the appellants, then the same is mistake and it ought to be reversed. The Trust is at liberty to change the same.
28. With the above said observations, the writ appeals in W.A.(MD)No. 1334 of 2024, W.A.(MD)No.1335 of 2024, W.A.(MD)No.1336 of 2024, W.A. Page No. 62 of 64 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm ) W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024 (MD)No.1337 of 2024, W.A.(MD)No.1338 of 2024 filed by the temple authorities and W.A.(MD)No.1955 of 2024 and W.A.(MD)No.1956 of 2024 filed by HR & CE authorities are dismissed, confirming the orders passed by the Writ Court in all the writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
26.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
sts/ Tmg
To:
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai.
Page No. 63 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 & 1955 & 1956 of 2024
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
sts/Tmg
Pre-Delivery of
Common Judgment made in
W.A(MD)Nos.1334 to 1338 &
1955 & 1956 of 2024
Dated:
26.09.2025
Page No. 64 of 64
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 03:13:13 pm )