Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Commissioner
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON: 28.04.2025
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON: 22.05.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 &
W.M.P.Nos.1848 of 2017, 37989 of 2016, 33811 of 2024
and W.M.P.(MD) No.7412 of 2021
W.P.No.1852 of 2017:
1.T.Radhakrishnan
2.T.N.Srinivasan
3.S.Palanisamy (Deceased)
4.P.Vijayakumar
(P4 impleaded as LRs of the deceased
P3, as per the order of this Court
dated 03.10.2024 in W.M.P.No.6683 of 2023
in W.P.No.1852 of 2017) .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
HR & CE
Uthamar Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Assistant Commissioner
HR & CE
Page 1 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
Dindigul.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) /
Executive Officer
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukoil
Palani.
4.M.S.Elango
(R4 impleaded as per the order
of this Court dated 03.10.2024
in W.M.P.No.14143 of 2024 in
W.P.No.1852 of 2017) .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in
S.M.N.K.No.41491/2016/A2 dated 17.09.2016 as well as the consequential
proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 08.10.2016 in N.K.No.2497/10/C6 and
quash the said proceedings and pass such further or other orders.
For the Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
for RR1 & 2
Mr.R.Bharanidharan
for R3
Mr.I.Jayaseelan for R4
Page 2 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
W.P.No.44154 of 2016:
P.K.Palanisamy Mudaliar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowents
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer
Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukkoil
Palani.
3.The Fit Person
Thaippoosam First Day Flag Hoisting Endowment Trust
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukkoil
Palani. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in
Che.Mu.Na.Ka.No.41491/2016/A2 dated 17.09.2016 and quash the same as
illegal and pass such further or other orders.
For the Petitioner : Mr.I.Jayaseelan
For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate
for R1
Mr.R.Bharanidharan
for RR2 & 3
Page 3 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
W.P. (MD) No.9688 of 2017:
1.R.Jeevanandam (Deceased)
2.M.S.Elango
3.J.Yuvaraj
4.J.Prabhasankar
(P3 and P4 are substituted as LRs of
the deceased P1, as per the order dated
03.10.2024 in W.M.P.No.12184 of 2024
in W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021) .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Commissioner
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department
Nungambakkam, Chennai.
2.The Joint Commissioner / Executive Officer
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple
Palani
Dindigul District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in
Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.41491/2016/A2 dated 17.09.2016 quash the same as the same
is arbitrary, ultravires, in violation of principles of natural justice, audi alteram
partem and pass such further or other orders.
For the Petitioners : Mr.I.Jayaseelan
For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan
Government Advocate, for R1
Page 4 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )
W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
Mr.R.Bharanidharan, for R2
COMMON ORDER
A.The Writ Petitions:
These three Writ Petitions seek identical relief and are therefore addressed and disposed of by this common order.
1.1 The Writ Petitions in W.P.No.44154 of 2016 and W.P. (MD) No.9688 of 2021 challenge the order dated 17.09.2016. W.P.No.1852 of 2017 challenges the aforementioned order dated 17.09.2016 as well as the consequential proceedings dated 08.10.2016.
B.The Background:
2. The Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple in Pazhani is an ancient temple. It is believed that the presiding deity, Dhandayuthapaniswamy, was installed and consecrated by Sri-La-Sri Bogar, a celebrated siddar, several centuries ago. Arulmigu Periya Nayaki Amman Thirukoil is also a sub-temple of this Devasthanam and is located at the foothills of the Pazhani hills. In this temple, Sri Muthukumaraswami and his divine consorts, Valli and Devasena, are installed and worshipped.Page 5 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 2.1. The Thaipoosam festival in respect of the said temple is celebrated in a grand manner for a period of 10 days. It commences with the Kodiyetram ceremony on the first day at the Muthukumaraswami Kodimaram in the Arulmigu Periya Nayaki Amman Thirukoil. On that first day, apart from flag hoisting, the ratha veethi thiruvizha of Arulmigu Valli Deivasena Sametha Muthukumaraswami takes place, with the Mandagapadi being conducted. C. The Case in W.P. No. 1852 of 2017:
3. It is the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 that the first day celebrations are conducted by the people known as 'Vyapurinaatu Pattakkarargal', to a Kattalai known as 'Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai'. The said Writ Petitioners, viz., T.Radhakrishnan and two others, claim that the same is a customary right of the aforesaid pattakkarargal, said to be a sub-sect of a particular caste. They have been conducting the said festival because originally, the kodimaram was erected and thereafter renovated by the ancestors of the said pattakkarargal.
Page 6 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 D. The Case in W.P. No. 44154 of 2016:
4. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.44154 of 2016, viz., one P.K.Pazhanisamy that his father and forefathers were the trustees of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Pazhani and 'Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai'. Every year, they wove the flag that was to be hosted, and the honor was given to the petitioner as well as his forefathers and thereafter to the petitioners from time immemorial.
4.1 As a matter of fact, some properties were set apart for this charity. During the lifetime of Mr. P.K. Pazhanisamy's father, a partition suit was filed in O.S. No. 399 of 1951 by one Rakkianna. The suit was contested by the petitioner's father, Kuppuswami, who contended that these properties were designated by the family for performing the necessary kattalais at Pazhani, in connection with the festival. However, the District Munsif Court, Tirupur, in its Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.1953, held that there is no evidence to show that the properties have been endowed and ruled that the properties are partible, Page 7 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 stating that the endowment board is not a necessary party to the suit. It is also noted that one M. Subramaniam and R. Jeevanantham have filed an application under Section 63 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, before the Joint Commissioner, and the application is pending.
E. The Case in W.P.No.9688 of 2021:
5. R.Jeevanantham and M.S.Elango have filed W.P.(MD) No. 9688 of 2021. Pending the Writ Petition, the said Jeevanantham died, and his legal heirs, Yuvaraj and Prabha Shankar, have come on record as petitioners 3 and 4. They claim that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 14, 15, 103, 112, and 113/3, totaling 39.36 acres located at Veerapandi Village, Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District, belong to them and their family members for several decades, and their title has been confirmed by the judgment in O.S. No. 399 of 1951. All revenue records are in the name of the family members. When a suit was earlier filed in 1951, Kuppuswami contested that these properties belong to the Kattalai, known as Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple Thaipoosam Thiruvizha First Day Page 8 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 Mandagapadi and Yagasalai Kattalai.
5.1 It is their case that the above-named Kattalai also belongs to the family members; however, at no point in time was a trust created dedicating the properties, either in favor of the Kattalai or in favor of the 2nd respondent – Temple. When the judgment of the District Munsif from the year 1953 has become final, no counterclaim can be made. The contrary claim is made on the basis of the Seppu Pattayam, which cannot be found. The answers provided to the petitioners' query under the Right to Information Act clarify that there is no such evidence with the official respondents.
F.The Impugned Order & its findings:
6. With the above three different sets of pleading, all the petitioners assail primarily, the order that is passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, the 1st respondent in the Writ Petitions on 17.09.2016. By the said order, the Commissioner found that the first day festival which includes the Kodiyetram and Mandagapadi is being conducted by the (Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Page 9 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai). Therefore, the Commissioner had sought for a report from the Assistant Commissioner as to whether the lands admeasuring 39.36 acres were dedicated as the above said Kattalai, for which the Assistant Commissioner had sent a report on 01.10.2015. As per the report of the Assistant Commissioner, there is a preliminary inspection report dated 14.10.1950 and as per the same, the above lands are dedicated to the aforesaid Kattalai. However, out of the original lands dedicated, an extent of 6.56 cents has been dealt with by one Chinnammal, wife of Pazhani, who has sold the properties for a sum of Rs.800/-. The report of the Assistant Commissioner also notes the Judgment of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, in O.S.No.399 of 1951. It was further reported to the Commissioner that, already claiming the rights of Kodiyetram as well as the Mandagapadi, an application under Section 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 has been filed by two persons, viz., Subramaniam and Jeevanantham, and the same is pending.
6.1 It was found in some of the temple documents that letters were issued to one Pazhanisamy regarding the first day festival, for which he has been paying Rs.1,614/- and has received the honours in relation to the first day. In Page 10 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 light of this, Pazhanisamy was summoned and examined. He argued that he is only managing the Kattalai and that the aforementioned 39.36 acres do not belong to it; however, there is another 22 acres of land in Eduvampalayam Village, Patta Nos.196 and 197, which were bequeathed by the Pandiya Kings to the Kattalai. He stated that by including these 22 acres along with the said 39.36 acres, a partition has taken place and that after the partition, he now possesses Acre 1.93 cents of the aforementioned lands. Furthermore, he has been conducting the Mandagapadi using his personal funds. He also mentioned that regarding the Kattalai, there is a Seppu Pattayam (Copper Plate) that outlines the particulars of the endowed properties. To ensure its safety, it was entrusted to the temple itself, even during Pazhanisamy's time.
6.2 Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner also stated in his representation that, since all these matters need to be traced, a suitable person can be appointed regarding the said Kattalai. In view thereof, pursuant to the powers under Section 47 (1) (c) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple was appointed as the Fit Person concerning the Page 11 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 said Kattalai. It was further ordered that the Fit Person will take steps to locate the lands and to retrieve the lands belonging to the Kattalai. G. The Case of the Respondents:
7. The respondents resist the Writ Petitions by filing counter affidavits. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent – the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, reiterates the findings made in the impugned order and submits that there are rival claims regarding the very existence of the properties. It is stated that when there are rival claims between the parties, it becomes necessary to ascertain the nature of the endowed properties and retrieve them for the endowment; therefore, a Fit Person has been rightly appointed.
7.1 The third respondent also filed a counter. It is contended that there is no proof regarding the Kattalai belonging to the particular community. H. The Arguments:
Page 12 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
8. Mr.T.M.Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017, submits that Kodiyetram and Mandagapadi are distinct. Regarding Kodiyetram, the petitioners' forefathers donated the Kodimaram, and also renovated. Customarily, such rights have been granted to them, which cannot now be revoked by the impugned order. The petitioners have historically woven the flag, presented it, and performed the honors of Kodiyetram through time immemorial. Merely because a portion of the property has reportedly been sold by one of the rival claimants, it does not affect the customary rights of the petitioners.
8.1 The learned counsel would rely on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in C.Aandiyappan and Others Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board and Others1 to argue that the fit person cannot be expected to spend money out of pocket to perform the Kattalai and that there cannot be any permanent appointment of a fit person concerning these specific endowments. He would also refer to paragraph No.58 to argue that even if there is any alienation, it is only the alienation that 1 2016 1 LW 340 Page 13 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 will become null and void, and the customary rights of the parties should not be taken away.
8.2 The learned counsel would also rely on the judgment of this Court in Selvaraja Kumar Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department and Others2 to contend that the endowment or right is strictly with reference to the benefit of a family, in which case the appointment of a fit person is erroneous in law.
8.3 Mr.Jayaseelan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD)No.9688 of 2021, would first draw the attention of this Court to the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, in the year 1953. He would submit that the Civil Court, even at that time, reviewed the records and found that there was no dedication of these properties to the Kattalai. Therefore, the impugned order appointing a fit person was issued only due to the alienation of a portion of the property, which is erroneous in law.
2 (2024) 6 CTC 434 Page 14 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 8.4 The learned counsel would then rely on the order passed in O.A.No.27 of 2021, whereby it has now been decided that these family members will perform the Kattalai on a rotational basis among themselves. Once the statutory order is issued, the appointment of a fit person cannot take place. The counsel would then guide this Court through the reply provided under the Right to Information Act, to argue that it can be seen that as of now, the only document claimed is the Seppu Pattayam, which could not be traced. Therefore, in the absence of any other document, whether title or revenue records, the properties remain in the name of the individuals and are dealt with by the family members and inherited by them. It cannot be asserted that the properties are Kattalai properties; thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, and the petitioners should be accorded respect during the Kodiyetram and the Mandagapadi as per the original agreed order.
8.5 Per contra, Mr.K.Karthikeyan, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the official respondents, would submit that the entire first day festival is conducted by the Kattalai and the Kattalai alone. Whoever claims Page 15 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 a right can do so only through the Kattalai. Their position is akin to that of trustees or Dharmakarthas of the Kattalai. A Kattalai exists solely by virtue of an endowment; without movable or immovable properties, there can be no Kattalai. In this case, it is evident that the Kattalai exists due to the dedication of these properties.
8.6 The learned Government Advocate would rely on the judgment in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi Vs. Duddukuru Subba Rao3 to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, after considering the principles of Hindu Law, held that dedication to charity need not necessarily be by an instrument or a grant, and it can be established by cogent and satisfactory evidence of the conduct of parties and user of the property, which shows the extinction of the private secular character of the property and its complete dedication to charity.
8.7 In the instant case, he would submit that the inspection report from the year 1950 would itself adumbrate the same. Except for an alienation by one odd person in the 1920s, the very fact that the properties remain intact and are held 3 1957 SCC OnLine SC 19 Page 16 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 by the particular individuals for the performance of the charity would itself prove the Kattalai.
8.8 The learned Government Advocate would rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Saroop Dasji Vs. S.P. Sahi and Others4 to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in the said case, laid down the law relating to the character of the Kattalai. It has been held that the purpose of the charity should be considered to determine whether it is private or public in nature. Once it is identified as a public religious charity, it becomes a religious endowment. The learned Government Advocate would then rely on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Nungambakkam, and Others Vs. C.V. Sudharsan and Others5 to contend that the question to be examined is whether there is a divestiture of ownership. If the beneficiaries of the charities are the public at large, making them unascertainable, the Kattalai should be considered a public Kattalai.
4 1959 Suppl 2 SCR 583 5 (2000) 2 CTC 559 Page 17 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 8.9 The learned Government Advocate would then rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Administration Department Vs. Jayaram and Others6 to contend that unless the claimants establish their right under the Act, they are estopped from shutting out the department at the outset.
8.10 The learned Government Advocate would then rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in K.S.Soundararajan and Others Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE and Others7 to contend that it is only the object of charity that must be borne in mind, and if it is connected with the deity and the festival, it must be regarded as public religious charities. The learned Government Advocate would also rely on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.J.Thulasiraman and Others Vs. The Commissioner of HR & CE Administration and Another8 to argue that once the property is a specific endowment, it cannot thereafter be claimed as the private property of the respondents. In that case, the right was determined based on a rock inscription. 6 (2006) 1 SCC 257 7 (2016) 15 SCC 597 8 (2019) 8 SCC 689 Page 18 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 8.11 The learned Government Advocate would then rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Idol of Sri Ranganathaswamy, represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner Vs. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust and Others9, wherein the term 'religious charity' has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It has been held that when the activity is associated with a festival or observance of a religious character, even in the absence of dedication, the property is being used solely for purposes tied to the religious festival, and it is considered an endowment. Paragraph No.25 of the Judgment is relied upon.
8.12 The learned Government Advocate would also rely on the judgment in Fit Person Vs. L.S. Dilli Babu (CRP (NPD) No. 3501 of 2011), specifically referring to paragraph No. 9, where this Court disallowed the permission to sell the property and held that the property must be held for the original purposes for which it is dedicated.
9 (2020) 17 SCC 96 Page 19 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 8.13 The learned Government Advocate would then rely on the judgment of this Court in Ponnambala Chettiyar and Others Vs. Commissioner and Others in (W.P.No.32937 of 2006), wherein this Court, speaking through the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Dhandapani, held that private disputes and the judgments between the parties that do not specifically consider the dedication for the purposes of the temple cannot bind the parties.
8.14 Mr. Bharanidharan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the temple, would submit that as far as the order passed in O.A.No.27 of 2021 is concerned, when findings were given about the public charitable nature of the Kattalai, the contesting parties suddenly took a U-turn and filed a compromise memo, based on which the order has been passed. Already, the temple has filed an appeal in A.P.No.29 of 2023, and the same is pending before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the rights of the parties must be determined only in the said appeal. If the petitioners deny the very Kattalai itself, then they cannot claim rights on the other hand. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi or right to challenge the order appointing a fit person. Page 20 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 I. The Discussion & Findings:
9. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the material records of the case.
9.1 All these petitioners are challenging the appointment of a fit person to a Kattalai, known as 'Thaipoosam Muthal Naal Kodiyetra Mandagapadi Kattalai', attached to the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, Thai Poosam Thiruvizha. Firstly, the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi's case (cited supra) recognized the specific aspect of Hindu law whereby a religious trust can also be of a private character. It is essential to extract paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment.
“In Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Gauri Shankar Tewari, Sir George Rankin, who delivered the judgment of the Board has observed, "In the usual case of complete dedication made to an idol, for example, the property ceases altogether to belong to the donor, and becomes vested in the idol as a juristic person. Complete relinquishnent by the owner of his proprietary right is, however, by no means the only form of dedication known to Hindu law, and is very different from anything that could ordinarily be inferred from the public user of a highway. From the standpoint of the Hindu law 'it is not essential to a Page 21 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 valid dedication that the legal title should pass from the owner, nor is it inconsistent with an effectual dedication that the owner should continue to make any and all uses of the land which do not interfere with the uses for which it is dedicated' per Mookerjee, J., in Chairman of the Howrah Municipality v. Khetra Krishna Mitra²". The learned Judge has further added that when the dedication is only partial the property in some parts of India might nonetheless in common parlance be described as debottar, but whether it be charged with a sum of money for the worship of an idol, or be subjected to a right of limited user on the part of the public, it would descend and be alienable in the ordinary way. The only difference, as Mr Mayne observes, is that it passes with it a charge upon it.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.2 Therefore, to enable the respondents to exercise the power, it must first be determined whether the Kattalai/endowment is public in nature. A review of the judgment relied upon by both sides shows that the law in this regard is well settled: it is the purpose of the charity/endowment that must be considered. In fact, in Selvaraja Kumar (cited supra), the learned Single Judge (the Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S. Srimathy) examined a situation where, for the benefit of the family, a deity was invited to a piece of land owned by the family, where mandagapadi was performed, after which the deity returned to its original abode; this arrangement was considered solely for the benefit of the family.
9.3 On the contrary, in this case, the purpose is to start the entire Page 22 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 Thaipoosam festival with the Kodiyetram. This is a significant beginning of the large festival associated with the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Koil and all the devotees. Both the Kodiyetram and the Mandagapadi takes place within the premises of the Arulmigu Periya Nayaki Amman Thirukoil. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever in holding that the Kattalai in question is solely a public religious charitable endowment.
9.4 Once the Kattalai is a public religious endowment, originally, the Division Bench of this Court in Sri-la-Sri Kailai Subramania Desiga Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannathi, Sole and Hereditary Trustee of the Rajan Kattalai attached to Thiyagarajaswami Devasthanam and another Vs. The State of Madras and Others10, defined the position as follows:-
“Ordinarily speaking a Kattalai is a special or specific endowment for certain specific services or a religious charity to be performed. For example Uchikala Kattalai in a temple would refer to an endowment for the purposes connected with the midday worship in the temple. Thus Kattalais being in the nature of specific endowments the founder of such kattalais would be entitled to prescribe the line of trustees to manage such Kattalais. The trustees so appointed, will, however, occupy a subordinate position in relation to the general trustee of a temple. It has been held that the general trustee has a right and duty to see that the funds in the hands of the trustees of the
10 1962 2 MLJ 67 Page 23 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 specific endowments or Kattalais are duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were endowed.
Although a Kattalai is a specific endowment in respect of which it would be competent for the founder to prescribe the line of trustees for its management, the property endowed for the performance of the Kattalai cannot beheld to be transferred in trust to the trustee vesting the legal estate therein in him; it vests in the duity itself. The position of a Kattalai trustee therefore would be nothing more than that of a manager of a Hindu Religious Endowment.
But Kattalais which are attached to Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple at Tanjore are, however, of a slightly different variety. In Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi v. Somasundara Mudaliar (1), a decision concerning the affairs of Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple of Tiruvarur, Muthuswami Iyer, J. delivering the judgment of the Bench, observed:
“In ordinary parlance the term Kattalai as applied to temple endowments signifies a special endowment for centain specific services or religious charity in the temple. Ardajama Kattalai or endowment for midnight service is an instance of the former and Annadana Kattalai or an endowment for distributing gratis food to the poor is an example of the latter. In this sense the word kattalai is used in contra distinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. In the case of some important temples the sources of income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance, each endowment is placed under a separate trustee and specific items of expenditure are assigned to it as the legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Each of such endowments is called also a Kattalai and the trustee who administers it is called the Katta-laigar or the stanik of the particular kattalai. The teim Kattalai is used in the present suit in tbis sense and Ex. R. enumerates the several Kattalais that exist in connection with the temple at Tiruvarur together with their average income from fasli 1221 to fasli 1228.” It is apparent from the above observations that the Page 24 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 various Kattalais attached to Sri Thyagarajaswami Temple were not independent specific endowments for specific purposes but rather of cases where properties belonging to the temple were allotted by a scheme as it were to the various services in the temple, the management of the allotted properties being vested in separate trustees. If this is the true position the trustees of the various Kattalais in the temple would form as it were a corporation, in whom the management of the temple properties vested each one of the members of the corporation being in charge of particular items of properties the proceeds of which would have to be devoted to the performance of the Kattalai.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.5 As a matter of fact, when it comes to the other activity during the course of the festival, outside the temple, the Division Bench in C.Aandiyappan's case (cited supra) considered the term ' Kattalai' in paragraph No.48 as follows:-
“48. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Vythilinga Pandara Sannathi v. G. Ranganatha Mudaliar {MANU/TN/0132/1933 : AIR 1934 Mad. 126} that the definition of the expression "religious endowments" is wide enough to cover 'Kattalais' also. In Palanivelayuthampillai and others v. Ramachandran and others {2001 (1) TLNJ 57 SC}, the Supreme Court extracted the observations of Dr. Mukherjea about "Kattalai Grants in South India" in his treatise on "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts". It will be useful to extract the same.
"XIV. KATTALAI GRANTS IN SOUTH INDIA 4.55.
Kattalai or special grant.--Before I close this chapter one thing requires to be noticed and that is a special grant for religious services in a temple which is in vogue in Southern India and is known by the name of Kattalai. As Muttusami Aiyyar, J. explained in Vythilinga v. Somasundara, in ordinary parlance, the term Kattalai as applied to temple means endowments and Page 25 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 signifies a special endowment for certain specific service or religious charity in the temple. Ardajama Kattalai or endowment for midnight service is an instance of the former and Annadan Kattalai or an endowment for distributing food to the poor is an example of the latter. In this sense the word Kattalai is used in contradistinction to the endowment designed generally for the upkeep and maintenance of the temple. Persons who endow properties for kattalais are entitled to appoint special trustees to administer them, and the general trustees of the institution have no right to dispossess them. And if under the terms of the grant, the special trustee has to utilise the income for specified services in the temple, the general trustee has the right, as the person in charge generally of the temple, to require the special trustee to hand over the income to him. But the special trustee is, in respect of the management of the kattalai properties, under the same obligations as a trustee, and an alienation by him of those properties would be void, unless it is for necessity or benefit. In the case of some important temples, the sources of the income are classified into distinct endowments according to their importance. Each endowment is placed under a separate trustee and specific items of expenditure are assigned to it as legitimate charges to be paid therefrom. Each of such endowments is called also a Kattalai and the trustee who administers it is called the Kattlaigar or stanik of the particular Kattalai. The import of this expression was discussed in detail by Sesagiri Aiyyar, J. in Ambala Vana v Sree Minakshy. According to him, this expression is used with reference to three different kinds of endowments. Properties may be endowed- (a) for the performance of pujas in the temple, or (b) for the performance of certain festivals in the temple, or (c) for the performance of Archanas to the deity in the name of the donors.
(a) Ordinarily, the puja is not performed in the name of the donor, and consequently, supplementary grants are made by pious persons in order that the service should be more efficiently performed. Instances of this type of grant are to be found in the famous temple at Chidambaram, where almost all the necessary daily services are conducted by means of Kattalais endowed by pious donors.Page 26 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
(b) It also happens that where lands for funds in respect of particular service or festival at temples are not sufficient for conducting them on the original scale, new donors come forward to supplement these funds.
(c) For Archana, however, no supplementary grant by other donors is possible. It is intended solely for the spiritual benefit of the grantor and it is not the concern of third parties to help in his performance if the funds are for any reason not found sufficient. Whatever the exact nature of Kattalais may be-and that must depend upon the usages of particular temples-one fact ought to be remembered in this connection, and that is that when the grant is to the deity and the income of particular funds is earmarked for special services which are entrusted to special trustees, if there is a surplus which cannot be spent on these services, it would be a case for the application of the cypres doctrine and the special trustee can, on no account, claim the surplus. This has been held by the Judicial Committee in an appeal from the Madras High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 9.6 Thereafter, in paragraph No.53, it was held as follows:-
“53. In the case of specific endowments such as 'kattalais', an obligation is imposed by the founder of the endowment upon the trustees, to continue to perform specific services perpetually. A property is endowed for the purpose, with a stipulation that the income arising there from should be utilised for the performance of the kattalai. As a consequence, the ownership of the property is not passed on to the idol, but a charge is created on the property for the performance of the services for which the specific endowment is created.” 9.7 Thus, it can be seen that if the Kattalai is directly related to purposes within the temple, such as performing poojas for the deity, the property is Page 27 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 considered to be vested in the deity. In contrast, in other cases of religious charity, the title to the property is vested in the endowment itself. However, in both instances, where the situation warrants, the power to appoint a suitable person is very much available. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench in paragraph Nos.50 and 51 held as follows:-
“50. The Act itself contemplates the appointment of Executive Officers (and some times fit persons) in the place of general trustees. But, insofar as special trustees who manage specific endowments such as 'kattalais' are concerned, the Act does not provide for the appointment of Executive Officers, but provides only for the appointment of fit persons, either under Section 53(4) or under Section 54(3).
51. It is needless to point out that the appointment of a fit person, either in the place of general trustees or in the place of special trustees, is always contemplated only as a temporary measure so that after the exhaustion of the contingencies which lead to the appointment of fit person, the next in the line of succession could be appointed as special trustees. But the appointment of an Executive Officer is not normally a temporary affair, like the appointment of a fit person.” 9.8 Thus, it can be seen that the power to appoint a fit person is very much available with the 1st respondent. The petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 are claiming a customary right as members of a specific sub-sect of a particular caste. Although the names of the sub-sect and caste are mentioned, the claim is specifically made in paragraph No.5 that only through the Kattalai can the Page 28 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 individuals perform the aforementioned purposes. This Court has already held that the caste or its sub-sect cannot claim to be a religious denomination. What is claimed can only be a customary right associated with any endowment or the family of the devotees, and not based on caste. Merely because the original donor belongs to a particular caste, the right cannot be appropriated by the caste entity, which is unconstitutional. A useful reference can be made to the paragraphs 4 and 5 of Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.6704 of 2025 dated 25.02.2025, whereby it is held that caste or subject cannot be a religious denomination and after the advent of the Constitution of India such claims based on caste or sub-sect would only amount to perpetuation of caste, that would be against the Constitutional goal and would be illegal and opposed to public policy.
9.9 The petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate. If they claim rights are through the kattalai, which is nothing but a religious trust/endowment, it can only be on the basis of the endowment of immovable/movable properties. It cannot exist without an endowment.Page 29 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 9.10 The averments show that the petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 are also claiming rights through one Pazhani Samy, S/o Kuppusamy, and others. It appears that there was originally a contest between two groups claiming customary rights. Therefore, the parties have appropriately approached the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner, Dindugal, via O.A.No.27 of 2021 under Section 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
9.11 Upon reviewing the said order, it is evident that the Joint Commissioner had passed an order. The nature of Kattalai was taken into account. It is also noted how Kattalai was performed over the years on a rotational basis by the members of the caste. The questions regarding the dedication of the immovable property were recorded on behalf of the temple. The Judgment in O.S.No.399 of 1951 was also brought to the attention. However, without a final Judgment regarding the customary rights that are claimed, the concerned parties ultimately filed a compromise memo, agreeing to perform on a rotational basis. Without any categorical finding, the said compromise was accepted, and the order was passed on 27.05.2023. Page 30 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 9.12 The Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple is greatly aggrieved by the aforementioned order and has already filed Appeal No. 29 of 2023, which is currently pending before the Commissioner of the HR & CE Department. In this appeal, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.44154 of 2016 along with the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.9688 of 2021 are parties. In respect of deceased individuals, the legal heirs are also imploded as respondents. The temple has raised numerous grounds in the appeal. It is evident that the following questions need to be resolved in the appeal.
(a) What is the nature of the Kattalai? Is it related to the dedication of immovable property, and is there a divestiture of title concerning the immovable properties?
(b) Who can claim rights under the said Kattalai, and should these rights be hereditary or non-hereditary in nature?
(c) Whether the properties, if any, belong to the Kattalai and whether they would vest with the deity or the specific endowment ?. Therefore, all claims related to customary rights, the trusteeship of the Kattalai, or any dispute regarding the properties of the Kattalai must be decided in the said Appeal Petition No.29 of 2023, which is now said to be pending. Page 31 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 9.13 Though the petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 are not the parties, a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition shows that they align with the position taken by the private respondents in O.A.No.27 of 2021. In any event, since the issues are interconnected, they can also be impleaded in Appeal No.29 of 2023, allowing for the determination of the issues regarding the katktalai and the temple, the authorities, and inter-parties rights once and for all.
9.14 In the meantime, and certainly in the interest of the Kattalai, the circumstances surrounding the preliminary report, which states that the properties are dedicated for the purpose of the Kattalai, must be thoroughly examined. This includes the nature of the properties, their management and dealings, any records related to the properties, the location of the Seppu Pattayam, and other relevant factors, all of which must be considered and addressed pending a decision. The appeal will also result in the ultimate appointment of the trustees, whether by hereditary means or on a rotational basis; therefore, until such time, performing the above task and taking care of the Kattalai, the appointment of a suitable person cannot be considered in any Page 32 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 manner illegal or without jurisdiction.
9.15 An argument is also made based on the decision of the learned District Munsif, Tirupur, in O.S.No.399 of 1951. Upon perusal of the same, it is evident that the matter involves family members. Even though the question was considered, it was done so in the absence of the Kattalai itself as a party. Neither the temple nor the HR & CE Department and its authorities were made parties to the proceedings. Although the judgment may be relied upon to press home the claim, it cannot be argued that it conclusively determines the rights of the parties, as it will not bind the temple, the Kattalai, or its authorities as they were not parties to the suit.
J.The Result:
10. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following terms:-
(i) The rights of the parties will be in accordance with the final verdict of the 1st respondent in A.P.No.29 of 2023;
(ii) The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 shall also present an application, upon which the 1st respondent shall permit them to be respondents Page 33 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 in the said appeal. Any other interested parties regarding the said Kodiyetram and Mandagapadi may also be impleaded as respondents. After giving due opportunity to all concerned to place on record any additional documents and affidavits/evidence in support of their claims, Appeal No.29 of 2023 shall be decided and disposed of;
(iii) The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.1852 of 2017 shall file an application to implead themselves within two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy. Thereafter, the entire issue shall be considered and final orders will be passed in A.P.No.29 of 2023 on or before 30.12.2025. In the meantime, it will be open for the Fit Person to carry out tasks, including filing any reports on behalf of the Kattalai with reference to the properties, pending appeal;
(iv) The festivals, if any, occurring before the finalization of the proceedings as per the interim order originally passed in W.P.No.44154 of 2016, shall be performed by the temple authorities themselves, including the Kodiyetram and Mandagapadi, while involving the traditional devotees and including the petitioners, but without giving any first honor or parivattam, etc., to any individual;Page 34 of 39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021
(v) If it is ultimately found in the said appeal that the properties belong to the Kattalai, then immediate steps should be taken for the proper administration and leasing of the properties, following the procedures established by law;
(vi) No costs; therefore, the associated miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.05.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes
Jer
To
1.The Commissioner
HR & CE
Uthamar Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Assistant Commissioner
HR & CE
Dindigul.
3.The Joint Commissioner (HR & CE) /
Executive Officer
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukoil
Palani.
4.The Fit Person
Thaippoosam First Day Flag Hoisting Endowment Trust Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Thirukkoil Palani.
Page 35 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Page 36 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 Jer W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.1848 of 2017, 37989 of 2016, 33811 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.7412 of 2021 22.05.2025 Page 37 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.1848 of 2017, 37989 of 2016, 33811 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.7412 of 2021 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J., When the matter is listed under the caption “for being mentioned”, Mr.T.M.Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No. 1852 of 2017 would submit that he is unable to file the impleading petition as directed in the judgment, as he does not have the necessary material papers.
2. Mr.R.Bharanidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the temple, submitted that he will furnish the required papers within two working days.
3. In view thereof, the matter stands closed. The time granted to the petitioner in the common order dated 22.05.2025 in W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 is extended by three weeks from the date on which the papers are served on the petitioner.
11.06.2025 nsl Page 38 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm ) W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.J., nsl W.P.Nos.1852 of 2017, 44154 of 2016 and W.P.(MD) No.9688 of 2021 & W.M.P.Nos.1848 of 2017, 37989 of 2016, 33811 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.7412 of 2021 11.06.2025 Page 39 of 39 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:36 pm )