Madras High CourtWA(MD)/336/2022dismissed

C. Saravanamuthu, v. R.Udhaya Kumar (Oor Gounder)

2022-06-21Honourable Mr Justice S.S. Sundar,Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar7 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.A.(MD).Nos.336 and 385 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.3366,3368 and 3933 of 2022 W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 1.C.Saravanamuthu 2.S.Ajith Kumar .. Appellants/8&9 Respondents Vs 1.R.Udhaya Kumar(Oor Gounder) 2.T.s.Thirumalai(Thalavai Gounder) 3.P.Raju(Nattuk Gounder) ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners 4.The District Collector, Dindigiul District.

5.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 7.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

8.The Joint Commissioner, Madurai.

9.The Assistant Commissioner, 10.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thirumogur Kalamega Perumal Temple, Madurai, As incharge Kailasanathar Temple, Natham.

11.M.Suruli 12.Tamilvannan 1/7

13.Murugan 14.R.Chinnamuthu 15.Kalaiarasan 16.M.Ganesan 17.Senthil 18.K.Chandramuthu 19.K.Muthuraj 20.K.Lala Krishnan 21.Thangavel 22.Rajiv Gandhi 23.Murugan 24.V.Durai 25.V.Dhanagncheyan 26.S.Selvam 27.K.Suruli 28.Kannan 29.S.Poosaithurai 30.K.Mani ... Respondents 4 to 30/ Respondents 1 to 7 & 10 to 29 Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 dated 18.03.2022.

Prayer in WP(MD). 21077/ 2019 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to Directing the 5 and 6 to appoint a fit person or an adhoc committee for management of the Arulmigu Mahalakshmi Amman Temple Sendurai, Natham Tk., Dindigul District, till aproper scheme is framed/suitable trustee is appointed and further direct suitable action to be taken against the respondents 8 and 9 with respect to the sale of the temple lands by them and to secure the properties in S.No.345/1A, 345/1B, 345/1C, 346/2 and 353/2 of Senthurai Village, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District from the private respondents and also for further directions to respondents 1 to 4 to further restore the revenue records of the properties in the name of the Arulmighu Mahalakshmi Amman Temple, Senthurai within a stipulate time. For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Sankar Ganesh For R1 and 2 : Mr.H.Laksmishankar For R4 to R9 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate For R10 : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 Rasathi .. Appellant/Proposed Party Vs.

2/7

1.R.Udhaya Kumar(Oor Gounder) 2.T.s.Thirumalai(Thalavai Gounder) 3.P.Raju(Nattuk Gounder) ..Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners 4.The District Collector, Dindigiul District.

5.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

6.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 7.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

8.The Joint Commissioner, Madurai.

9.The Assistant Commissioner, 10.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Thirumogur Kalamega Perumal Temple, Madurai, As incharge Kailasanathar Temple, Natham.

11.C.Saravanamuthu 12.S.Ajith Kumar 13.M.Suruli 14.Tamilvannan 15.Murugan 16.R.Chinnamuthu 17.Kalaiarasan 18.M.Ganesan 19.Senthil 20.K.Chandramuthu 21.K.Muthuraj 22.K.Lala Krishnan 23.Thangavel 24.Rajiv Gandhi 25.Murugan 26.V.Durai 27.V.Dhanagncheyan 28.S.Selvam 29.K.Suruli 30.Kannan 3/7

31.S.Poosaithurai 32.K.Mani ... Respondents 4 to 32/ Respondents 1 to 29 Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019, dated 18.03.2022.

Prayer in WP(MD). 21077/ 2019 :

Pon Ramkumar For R1 and 2 : Mr.H.Laksmishankar For R4 to R9 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate For R10 : Mr.C.Guhaseelarupan For R11to19, 29 21 to 26,31 : No appearance COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR.J.,) These two writ appeals have been filed against the same order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 dated 18.03.2022.

2. The appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 was appointed as a hereditary trustee of the temple known as "Arulmigu Mahalakshi Amman Temple, Senthurai, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District". The writ petition in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 came to be filed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition to appoint a Fit Person or an Adhoc Committee for the management of the Arulmigu Malahlakshmi Amman Temple, Sendurai, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District. In the said writ petition, several allegations were made against the hereditary trustee, viz., the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 was removed from hereditary trusteeship, by an order dated 4/7

10.09.2020. It is also admitted that the wife of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 who is also the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022, was appointed as a hereditary trustee by order of Joint Commissioner, HR&CE, dated 10.09.2020, under Section 5(2) of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

3. The appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has filed an appeal as against his removal from hereditary Trusteeship. Even though the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 was appointed as hereditary Trusteeship as a person in line of succession, by order dated 10.09.2020, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge without even impleading the hereditary trustee as per the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner, dated 10.09.2020. By order impugned in the writ petition, the HR&CE Department was directed to take immediate steps to appoint a Fit Person, who will take charge of the temple and to administer the same. The learned Single Judge further directed the official respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of 30 days.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A(MD) No.385 of 2022 submitted that the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 is no more a hereditary trustee of the temple and that she was appointed as hereditary trustee under Section 54(2) of the Act. She being the only person succeeded to the office of hereditaryship, entitled to administer the temple as a hereditary trustee in her own right. Merely because her husband was disqualified, she is not disqualified. It is admitted that on the application filed by the father of the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 he was appointed as a hereditary trustee by declaring the office as hereditary, by proceedings of the Joint Commissioner dated 26.08.1991. This order was passed under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

After his father died on 26.12.2013, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 was continued as a hereditary trustee as a defacto-trustee. He also filed an application to appoint him as a hereditary trustee as a person next in the line of succession to his father. However, that application was dismissed holding that he has done some irregularities, during the tenure as a trustee. Challenging the said order, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. After availing the statutory remedy, the appellant in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 has no locus standi to maintain the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge directing to appoint a Fit Person in the temple for proper administration of the temple. Giving liberty to the appellant in W.A(MD)No.

336 of 2022 pursue his appeal remedy, which is a statutory remedy available to him, writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.336 of 2022 is dismissed. 5.However, the fact that the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 has been appointed as hereditary trustee, by proceedings dated 10.09.

No.br.K.e.f.vz;.6031/2020/M1, is not in dispute. 6.Very strangely, the fact that the appellant in W.A(MD) No.385 of 2022 has been appointed as a hereditary trustee is not even brought to the notice of this Court. The learned Single Judge is under the impression that the appellant was appointed as hereditary trustee by her husband, who is the appellant in W.A(MD) No.336 of 2022. In these circumstances, the appellant is an aggrieved person and the order passed without hearing the appellant is irregular. Whether the appellant in W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 is a hereditary trustee, is not an issue before this Court and appointment as a hereditary trustee is not put under challenge in any proceeding and hence, this Court is unable to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge.

It is true that the appellant/husband has been accused of several charges and he might have committed breach of trust. However, the order appointing the appellant/wife independently by the Joint Commissioner cannot be set aside and the HR&CE Department cannot simply be directed to appoint a Fit Person when there is a hereditary trustees in office. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P(MD)No.21077 of 2019 is set aside. It is open to any of the respondents to challenge the order appointing the appellant as a hereditary trustee, in the manner known to law. Accordingly, W.A(MD)No.385 of 2022 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // /07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1.The District Collector, Dindigiul District.

2.The District Revenue Officer, Dindigul District.

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, 4.The Tahsildar, Natham Taluk, Dindigul District.

5.The Joint Commissioner, Madurai.

6/7

6.The Assistant Commissioner, +1 CC to M/s.H. LAKSHMI SHANKAR, Advocate ( SR-27379[F] dated 22/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.C. GUHASEELARUPAN, Advocate ( SR-27590[F] dated 23/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-27402[F] dated 22/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.R.G. SHANKARGANESH, Advocate ( SR-27565[F] dated 22/06/2022 ) W.A.(MD).Nos.336 and 385 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.3366 and 3933 of 2022 21.06.2022 SRK(CO) KB(04.07.2022) 7P 11C 7/7