Disposed¶57

Thaavathiru Thiruvadikudil Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC25 Jul 2025WP(MD)/19988/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fit person appointment under Section 47(1)(c); non-hereditary trustee under Section 47(5); Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959; Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam, Swamimalai; GO.No.65 dated 28.01.2025; indefinite appointment without period; nine-month direction to constitute Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees; son not liable for father's conduct; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition not quashed; fifth respondent permitted to continue as fit person; first respondent directed to constitute a Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees within nine months; disposed of with no costs and connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶57

Thaavathiru Thiruvadikudil Swamigal Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the appointment of the fifth respondent as fit person under Section 47(1)(c) without any specified period (indefinite tenure) renders the impugned order liable to be quashed, given the contention that Section 47(1) confines a fit person's appointment to two years. +2 more

¶44

Court's answer

Recording the Additional Advocate General's submission that the impugned order will operate only for nine months, the Court directed the first respondent to ensure that a Board of Trustees consisting of Non-Hereditary Trustees is appointed within nine months from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Since the temple has to be administered, the Court sees no impediment in the continuation of the fifth respondent as fit person; there are no allegations against the fifth respondent personally notwithstanding the petitioner's father's attempt to appropriate the property.

¶46

Key takeaways

The mistake of the petitioner's father cannot haunt the son if the son has no other record of blameworthy conduct.ratio¶50
If the fifth respondent's conduct inspires confidence, he may be appointed once again as a Non-Hereditary Trustee for a fixed term, strictly in accordance with law, within that nine-month period.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), C. Saravanan, J. - Writ petition against GO.No.65 dated 28.01.2025 appointing T.R.Swaminathan as fit person under Section 47(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for A/M.Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam, Swamimalai, following his earlier appointment as non-hereditary trustee under Section 47(5) vide G.O.Ms.No.264 dated 03.11.2023, whose challenge (W.P(MD)No.28334 of 2023) was dismissed and whose appeal (W.A(MD)No.613 of 2024) remains pending. Objections based on the fifth respondent being the son of Rajagopal (involved in the trust land/chatram dispute) and on the absence of any specified tenure were rejected: the Court found no impediment to his continuance since the temple had to be administered and no blame attached to him personally, holding that the father's mistake cannot haunt the son. Recording the Additional Advocate General's submission that the appointment operates only nine months, the Court directed constitution of a Board of Non-Hereditary Trustees within nine months and left open the fifth respondent's possible reappointment as trustee for a fixed term if his conduct inspires confidence. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.15386 of 2025

¶7

Thaavathiru Thiruvadikudil Swamigal, S/o.Kandasamy Pillai, Plot No.1, Kodaiyanthottam, Government Hospital Backside, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District - 612 001. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

¶10

2.The Commissioner,

¶11

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 004.

¶12

3.The Joint Commissioner,

¶13

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Mayiladudurai Division, Samantharkulam, Sitharkadu, Mayiladuthurai Taluk and District – 609 603

¶14

4.A/M.Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam,

¶15

Rep. by its Executive Officer / Deputy Commissioner,

¶16

1/8

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶19

Swamimalai, Kumbakonam Taluk, Thanjavur District.

¶20

5.T.R.Swaminathan ...Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent passed in GO No.65 dated 28.01.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent not to appoint the fifth respondent as a Non-Hereditary Trustee of the fourth respondent temple in future.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.R.S.Sivaram For R1 to R4 : Mr.Veerakathiravan Additional Advocate General III Assisted by Mr.S.S.Madhavan Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order

¶25

passed by the first respondent bearing reference GO.No.65 dated 28.01.2025.

¶26

By the impugned order, the fifth respondent has been appointed as a

¶27

fit person under Section 47(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Chartiable Endowments Act, 1959. Earlier, the fifth respondent and four

¶28

2/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶31

others were appointed as non-hereditary trustee under Section 47 (5) of the Act vide order dated 03.11.2023 in G.O.Ms.No.264. The said Government Order appointing the fifth respondent and four others as non-hereditary trusees of the subject temple namely, Swaminatha Swami Devasthanam, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD)No.28334 of 2023. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2023.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A(MD)No.613 of 2024 and is pending before this Court. Meanwhile, it appears that barring the fifth respondent, none of the four Non-Hereditary Trustees came forward to take charge. Therefore, by the impugned order, the first respondent has decided to appoint the fifth respondent who was earlier appointed as a NonHereditary Trustee along with four other as a fit person under Section 47 (1) (c) of the Act.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fifth respondent is none other than the son of one Rajagopal, who was the Managing Trustee of the Hindu Pilgrim Amenities Trust.

¶34

3/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶37

It appears that during the Kumbabishekam held in the year 1953 at the temple, substantial amount was collected by the said Hindu Pilgrim Amenities Trust. Out of the amounts collected by the said Trust, land was purchased and a chatram was constructed for the devotees visting temple.

¶38

It appears that the said Rajagopalan had also filed a suit for declaration that the land and chatram belongs to the Trust and not to the Temple. The suit was also decreed by the Sub Court, Kumbakonam in O.S.No.124 of 2024 by its judgment and decree dated 11.07.2006. Against which, the Temple however filed an appeal before the Appellate Court in A.S.No.42 of 2009. The Appellate Court reversed the aforesaid decision of the Sub Court, Kumbakonam on 11.03.2011. It is informed that further appeal was filed by the said Rajagopal in S.A(MD)No.894 of 2011 was however dimissed as withdrawn on 16.11.2022.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land which was purchased and developed out of the amounts collected during the Kumbabishekam was handed over to the Temple only on 21.05.2024 and the documents have been registered to that effect.

¶40

4/8

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶43

A challenge to the appointment is primarily on the ground that the fifth respondent, who is the son of the said Rajagopal has admitted to use the land and the chatram by utilising the amounts collected during the Kumbabishekam held in 1953.

¶44

It is informed that the appointment is made without any specific period and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that as per Section 47(1) of the Act, the period of appointment of a fit person has to be confined only for a period of 2 years, whereas in this case, the appointment has been made for indefinite period of times to comes without any period. Therefore, on this count also the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶45

The learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 4 submits that the appointmet of the fifth respondent is only an interim measure and that attempts are being made to appoint the non-hereditary trustees under Section 47(1)(c) of the Act within a period of next 9 months.

¶46

Since the temple has to be administered, I see no impediment in the continuation of the fifth respondent as a fit person. Although the petitioner's

¶47

5/8

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶50

father had attempted to appropriate the property, there are no allegation against the fifth respondent. That apart, the mistake of the petitioner's father cannot haunt the son, if the son has no other record of any blame worthy conduct.

¶51

The order of this Court dated 15.12.2023 in W.P(MD)No.28334 of 2023 also records that the lineage of the fifth respondent's family and the same is captured in Paragraph No.5, which reads as under:

¶52

5.The learned Additional Advocate General also informed this Court that the sixth respondent's grandfather one Saminatha Udaiyar was a Philonthropist, has donated several lands to the temple and also to a school,viz., National Higher Secondary School, in which he has studied.

¶53

Recording the above submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order will operate only for a period of 9 months, I direct the first respondent to ensure that the Board of Trustees consisting of Non-Hereditary Trustees are appointed within a period of 9 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the fifth respondent's disposition conduct inspires a confidence, the fifth respondent may be appointed once again as a Non-Hereditary Trustee for a fixed strictly in accordance with law within such period.

¶54

6/8

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P(MD)No.19988 of 2025

¶57