Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hereditary trustee in Sri-La-Sri Sathya Gnana Mahadeva ... vs The Commissioner on 22 May, 2025Matching Fragments
2. The factual background from which the Writ Petition arises is that Arulmighu Thiyaagaraaja Swami Thirukoil is an ancient temple. The presiding deity of the temple is Sri Thiyaagaraaja Swamy. The Aazhi Ther (temple chariot) is the largest in South India and is widely renowned. A peculiar feature of the temple is that there are no properties directly registered in the temple's name. Thirteen kattalais oversee all the activities of the temple. Each of the kattalais manages several hectares landed properties and provides for the temple's needs. Among the 13 kattalais, Abisheka kattalai, Annadhana kattalai, and Rajan kattalai are the most significant. For both the Abhisheka kattalai and Annadhana kattalai, the Aadheena karthars of the Velakurichi Mutt serve as the hereditary trustees. At the time of filing the present Writ Petition, the petitioner's father, Sri-la- Sri Ajappa Nateswara Pandara Sannathi, was the hereditary trustee, and now, Sri-la-Sri Sathya Gnana Mahadeva Desika Paramacharya Swamigal, the Aadheena karthar, is the current hereditary trustee. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:55 pm )
5. In spite of the objections submitted by the hereditary trustees, G.O.No.2347, dated 13.07.1966, was issued extending the erstwhile notifications. The present petitioner challenged the said Government Order by filing O.S.No.12 of 1968 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. However, the suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 17.05.1980 on the ground that constitutional validity can be decided only by the Constitutional Courts. Aggrieved thereby, the then hereditary trustee of the kattalai preferred A.S.No.176 of 1984, and the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal by the judgment and decree dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:55 pm ) 22.12.1993, thereby setting aside G.O.No.2347, dated 13.07.1966. In the said judgment, it has been categorically held that Sections 75-A to 75-C are unconstitutional vis-à-vis the kattalai. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeal Nos.2562 - 2564 of 1994 were filed by the department. However, these were withdrawn with the liberty to proceed under the Act. It is noteworthy that the management of the kattalai, which has been conducted by the Executive Officer of the temple since 1937, was never handed back to the petitioner trustee. Under these circumstances, the original show-cause notice impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 11.07.2002, which was issued under Section 75-B of the Act, 1959, was directed to the then hereditary trustee. The then hereditary trustee was directed to show cause why the notifications issued originally should not be continued. Challenging this, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
10. The original writ petitioner, i.e., the father of the present petitioner, also filed O.S.No.13 of 1962 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, after the earlier perquisites were disallowed in Appeal No.56 of 1961 by the authorities. By the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1963, these beneficial interests in favour of the hereditary trustees were held to be protected under Section 105 of the present Act, and the Court passed a decree restoring the perquisites. Therefore, the petitioner holds a beneficial interest in the kattalai, and if the hereditary trustees possess a beneficial interest in the kattalai by virtue of Section 76 of the Act of 1959, then the entire Chapter VI is not applicable, and thus the impugned show-cause notice, as amended, is without jurisdiction. The learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 04:23:55 pm ) Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that if the entire petitioner is completely divested of the management, such an action cannot withstand scrutiny under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
These beneficial interest in favour of the hereditary trustees is protected under Sec. 105 of the present Act (XXII of 1959)."
28. Apart from this, the further orders, including the order dated 11.01.1985, are also relied upon; in the year 1985, the following perquisites were paid to the trustees:
"The allowances payable to the Hereditary Trustee of the temple with effect from 1.7.1983 are fixed as follows:-