SHEMBAYEE AMMAL Vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Subramanian learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. T. Chandrasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader (Hr andce) for first respondent and Mr. M. C. Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the fit person who has been appointed.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that Arulmigu Kallupillaiyar Koil at Narimedu in Madurai Town was established by Periya Karuppan Servai who is the father-in-law of the petitioner, as early as in the year 1944 and improvements have been made. After his death, the petitioner's husband became the trustee and he has also made improvements. The petitioner's husband also died on 15. 6. 1991 leaving behind the petitioner as his wife, five sons and two daughters as his legal heirs. According to the petitioner, the temple belongs to Agamudiar community and the petitioner's husband along with four others of the said community have filed a petition under Section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act in O. A. No. 11 of 1987 before the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE , Madurai and the same was dismissed and there was a further appeal in A. P. No. 800/1987 before the Commissioner, HR and CE, Madras and the same was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner on advice, has filed an application under Section 63 (b) of the HR and CE Act in O. A. No. 11 of 1993 before the Deputy Commissioner (Now Joint Commissioner), HR and CE, Madurai for declaration that the petitioner and his sons are hereditary trustees of the said temple. In the meantime, the Assistant Commissioner, HR andce, Madurai the first respondent herein has passed the impugned order by appointing the second respondent herein as a fit person to the said temple. The appointment of second respondent as a fit person is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the petition filed under Section 63 (b) of the HR and CE Act for declaration that the petitioner and her sons are hereditary trustees and hence the order of the first respondent appointing the 2nd respondent as a fit person to the said temple is not valid in law.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would fairly submit that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the said petition under Section 63 (b) of HR and CE Act was dismissed on 18. 7. 2005. It was as against the order of dismissal, the petitioner has filed an appeal in A. P. No. 7 of 2006 before the Commissioner, HR and CE, Madras and the same is pending.