Disposed

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v v. The Commissioner

Madras HC8 Jun 2022WP(MD)/10401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the fourth respondent be permitted to receive the seventh day Mandagapadi honour after the petitioner, holding that this addition would not impair the petitioner's existing rights, privileges, or respect.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the fourth respondent may receive the seventh day Mandagapadi honour after the petitioner; no costs. Connected petitions closed.

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v Vs The Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 08.06.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD).No.7427, 7428, 7433 and 7980 of 2022

¶7

V.Pathmanaba Chettiar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai.

¶10

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Sivagangai.

¶11

3.The Manager, Sivagangai Samasthanam Devasthanam, Sri Kannudaya Nayagi Amman Thirukovil, Nattarasankottai, Sivagangai District.

¶12

4.K.Kannappan ...Respondents

¶13

(R4 is impleaded vide Court order dated 07.06.2022 in W.M.P(MD).No.7866 of 2022)

¶14

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.D1-758/2020, dated 04.05.2020, copy of the same furnished to the petitioner in person on 19.05.2022, quash the same and consequently forbearing the third respondent or any one claiming on his behalf from in any manner interfering with the petitioner vahairas from performing Seventh Day Mandagapadi in the Vaikasi Visagam Festival in Sri Kannudaya Nayagi Amman Thirukovil, Nattarasankottai, Sivagangai District without following the due process of law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadayalan For R1 & R2 : Mr.M.Lingadurai Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar For R4 : Mr.R.M.Makesh Kumaravel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner, who is the seventh day Mandagapaditharar of Kannudaya Nayagi Amman Thirukovil, Sivagangai District has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.D1758/2020, dated 04.05.2020.

¶20

According to the petitioner, the petitioner's group, namely, Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar from the time immemorial have been doing the seventh day Mandagapadi and they used their Jewel “Magarakanni”, a valuable jewel attorned to the deity for the whole day and they have the privilege of lifting gy;yhf;F. They receive first respect on the seventh day and finally “Kalanji Honour” will be given to them. This honour is now attempted to infringe by including Kolanchettiar Vahairah by the above impugned order, which was issued by the Manager of the Devasthanam. It is a customary right, which can be modified and decided by the Joint Commissioner under Section 63 (e) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Thus, the order issued by the Manager is not proper.

¶21

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submits that the Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar are the Mandagapaditharars for the seventh day Mandagapadi during the Vaikasi Visagam Festival. He further submits that the Magarakanni is attorned to the deity not only on the seventh day festival but for the entire days of the festival from first day to eleventh day. It is not disputed that “Magarakanni” gold ornament was presented by the Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar's fore fathers and it was there for more than 200 years. For the Mandagapadi, 27 measures of rice received from these two groups and the same is used for pooja and thereafter, Prasadham given to the petitioner's group, Mirasdhars and others. He further submitted that fhuzkhpahij was given not only to the petitioners but to 9 other persons in total 10 persons are honoured, further respects and honour are given to several other persons on all the festival days.

¶22

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that Kolanchettiar Vahairah donated properties to the temple and contributed for the temple growth. They have donated 10 acres of land to the temple for running a school. Further, they undertake that in no way, the respect and status of the petitioner would get affected in any manner. Whatever the petitioner are entitled, receiving on the seventh day Mandagapadi will be protected and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ safeguarded. After completion of honouring the petitioner,

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022

¶25

thereafter, the Kolanchettiar Vahairah will be honoured. He also submitted that initially the festival was for ten days, on the request and demand of the devotees, the eleventh day festival included. Likewise, for the welfare of temple, worshipping devotees, request are acceded it is done only for the welfare of the temple. By adding the fourth respondent as a Madagapaditharar, it will no way affect the right, respect and honour of the petitioner. The fourth respondent produced a letter from the Kolanchettiar Vahairah, wherein, one K.Kannappan is authorised to represent the Kolanchettiar Vahariah. This group have donated the properties to the welfare of the temple and they are also contributing for the development of the temple.

¶26

Considering the contribution made by the Kolanchettiar Vahairah, Hereditary Trustee of the Sivagangai Samasthanam has passed a resolution to allow the fourth respondent to participate in the seventh day Mandagapadi and to receive the honours after honouring the petitioner's group namely Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar. They undertake that by receiving the seventh day Mandagapadi honour, they will not make any other claim, demeaning the status of the Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar groups in any manner during the seventh day festival of Mandagapadi.

¶27

Considering the above submission, it is seen that the Kolanchettiar Vahairah is added and permitted to receive the seventh day Mandagapadi honour, which no way disturb the rights, privilege and respect of the petitioner. It is made clear that the customary right and honour given to the Meetappa Chettiar and Avichi Chettiar group shall not suffer in any manner, and thereafter, in addition to that, the Mandagapadi Honour will be given to the Kolanchettiar Vahairah on the seventh day.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

// True Copy //

09/06/2022

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Nungampakkam, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3/4

¶36

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022

¶37

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Sivagangai.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.R.M.MAKESH KUMARAVEL, Advocate ( SR-24546[F] dated 08/06/2022 )

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.S.MANOHAR, Advocate ( SR-24771[F] dated 09/06/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.DEENADHAYALAN, Advocate ( SR-24765[F] dated 09/06/2022 )

¶40

W.P(MD).No.10401 of 2022 08.06.2022

¶41

KS(CO) GC(09.06.2022) 4P 6C

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

4/4

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathmanaba Chettiar.v v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vairamuthu Chettiyar Vs the Joint Commissioner

T.Muthukumarasamy Vs The Commissioner

Pooja Timber and Saw Mill Vs The State Tax Officer

Sivakasi Hindu Nadars Uravin Murai Mahamai Fund, Vs The Commissioner

Senthilnathan Vs The Joint Commissioner

Velayutham.S Vs The Superintendent of Police