P SIVAJI POOSARI Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER, TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT (ADMIN) DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is a hereditary trustee of one Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, at Madurai. According to the petitioner, originally, the temple was established by one Pandi Kodangi, after his demise, his son one Periyasamy was acting as trustee of the temple and performing poojas. The said Periyasamy died leaving behind two sons namely, Pandian @ Botha Possari and Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poosari. Since they were minors at the time of his father's death, their mother Valliammal was in administration of the temple as their guardian. Thereafter, after attaining majority, they were conducting poojas. After the death of Pandian @ Botha Poosari, his sons namely, (a)Veeramalai, (b) Sangan, (c)Ponnan Servai (d)Kodangi Servai and (e)Pandian Servai become trustees along with the said Periyannan @ Mahamuni Poojari. They have also filed a suit in O.S.No.383 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, for framing scheme for the said temple. During the pendency of the said suit, one of the legal heirs of the Pandian @ Botha Poosari namely, Ponnan Servai died in the year 1971, and his legal heirs were impleaded as parties in the suit whereas the mother of the petitioner, the widow of Ponnan Servai and the second respondent herein who is the daughter of Ponnan Servai and the sister of the petitioner was appointed as guardian for the minors legal heirs of Ponnan Servai. However, the second respondent, at any point of time, did not claim hereditary trusteeship in the place of their father Ponnan Servai. Thereafter, on the application filed by the petitioner to recognise him as a hereditary trustee, the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Madurai by a proceedings dated 09.12.1983, recognised him as a hereditary trustee after obtaining necessary consent from other the male heirs of Ponnan Servai. Thereafter, in the year 1983, he was elected as managing trustee of the temple. Subsequently, in the year 2007, the second respondent has filed an application before the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, the first respondent herein to declare her as one of the hereditary trustees along with her brothers and also for sharing the service to the temple. But the first respondent dismissed the application directing her to approach the Civil Court under Section 64 (1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short, 'the Act'). Being aggrieved over the same, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, against the portion of the order rejecting her request to appoint her as hereditary trustee and the petitioner also filed a revision against the very same order so far as permitting the second respondent to approach the authorities under Section 64 (1) of the Act for participating in the affairs and management of the temple. But the Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner by an order dated 03.04.2009.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by the Commissioner, HR & CE, the petitioner herein filed two writ petitions before this Court in W.P(MD)No.4364 of 2009 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and W.P(MD)No.4365 of 2009 allowing the appeal filed by the second respondent recognising her as the legal heir of Ponnan Servai. This Court by an order dated 10.02012 allowed both the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.

(3.) Challenging the order passed in W.P(MD)No.4365 of 2009, the second respondent filed writ appeal in W.A.(MD)No.251 of 2012. The said writ appeal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 05.07.2012 and thereafter, the second respondent approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing S.L.P (C)Nos.33112 and 33113 of 2012 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the S.L.P, by an order dated 09.11.2012.