Disposed¶41

N.Thiagu v. the Executive Magistriate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Feb 2026CRL RC/1627/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temple trust administration dispute; validity of founder trustee's will; Executive Magistrate order under S.126 BNSS set aside; interim administrators Dr.A.Somasundaram and T.Senthil Kumar (R4); Steering Committee; interim arrangement pending Civil Court adjudication; CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025; Crl.M.P.Nos.16640 & 18135 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Justice Sunder Mohan; disposed 23-02-2026; BNSS 2023 S.438 r/w 442; Thiruvallur; Brahama Suthra Kuzhu Trust.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.08.2025 set aside; Dr.A.Somasundaram and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar (R4) directed to be in-charge of the temple trust until a competent civil Court determines the rights of the parties; connected Crl.M.P.Nos.16640 & 18135 of 2025 closed. ¶41

N.Thiagu Vs the Executive Magistriate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the dispute as to the validity of the will executed by the founder trustee, and the resulting question of who should administer the temple trust, could lawfully be adjudicated in this Revision or by the first respondent (Executive Magistrate). +1 more

¶35

Court's answer

The dispute with regard to the validity of the will cannot be adjudicated in this Revision and ought not to have been adjudicated by the first respondent.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order is set aside; Dr.A.Somasundaram and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar (fourth respondent) are directed to be in-charge of the temple trust until there is any order of the competent civil Court determining the rights of the parties, and it is open to them to consult any person for the purpose, including members of the Steering Committee.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision under S.438 r/w 442, BNSS 2023 (Madras HC, Sunder Mohan J., 23-02-2026) challenging an order dt 20.08.2025 of the Executive Magistrate/RDO, Thiruvallur (proc. No.5919-2025-A1, S.126 BNSS), which, after recording an A-party/B-party dispute between the petitioner and R3 over management of a temple trust, had directed a Steering Committee to run the trust per the founder trustee's will. Held: the validity of the will cannot be adjudicated in this Revision and ought not to have been adjudicated by the first respondent; impugned order set aside; on the counsels' agreed proposal, Dr.A.Somasundaram (advocate, Madurai) and R4 T.Senthil Kumar directed to be in-charge of the trust until a competent Civil Court determines the parties' rights, free to consult any person including Steering Committee members. Revision disposed of; connected Crl.M.P.Nos.16640 & 18135 of 2025 closed.

¶1

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.Nos.16640 & 18135 of 2025

¶7

N.Thiagu S/o.Late Nithyanandam.P Managing Trustee, Brahama Suthra Kuzhu Trust, No.38, Mettu Street, Pollivakkam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur District - 602 002.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Jawaharlal Nehru Road, (Near Head Post Office), Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu 602 001.

¶11

The Inspector of Police Manavala Nagar Police Station, Manavala Nagar, Thiruvallur District - 602 002.

¶12

N.Srinivasan S/o.Late.Narasimmal Naidu, No.82/1, Mettu Street, Polivakkam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur District-602 002.

¶13

T.Senthil Kumar S/o. Thillaiappan, No.10, Vaduganathaswamy Kovil Street, Kundadam Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District 638 702.

¶14

__________ Page1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶17

N.Saravana Kumar S/o. Narasimhan, No. 332 Lenin St. Gnanamoorthi Nagar, Ambattur 600 053.

¶18

E. Manigandan S/o.Y.C.Eshwaramuthy, Plot 62, 9th Street, Baba Nagar, Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049

¶19

S.Pathipan S/o. Sathiyamoorthy, T-1 Block, I an Marvel Apartment No.2, Mullai Nagar, TNHB Road,West Tambaram, Kanchipuram 600 045.

¶20

J. Yuvaraj S/o. D.Jayakumar, No. 978/1 7^th Cross Street, South Ram Nagar, Madipakkam 600 091. (R4 to R8 suo motu impleaded as per order dt 3/09/2025 in Crl. RC. 1627/2025.)

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of the BNSS, 2023, to set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings No.5919-2025-A1 under Section 126 of BNSS Act.

¶23

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Venkatesan

¶24

__________ Page2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶27

For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1 & R2 Mr.R.Ezhilarasan for R3 Mr.B.Kumarasamy for R4 Mr.B.Vijayakumar for R5, R6 & R8 Mr.R.Santhosh for R7

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Revision challenges the order passed by the first respondent in which the first respondent after recording the dispute between A party and B party, namely, the first petitioner and the third respondent herein with regard to management of a Temple trust, directed a Steering Committee to be in-charge of the temple trust according to the will of the founder trustee.

¶30

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the execution of the will is in dispute and by the impugned order, the first respondent had decided the validity of the will and as to who should administer the temple, which is not in accordance with law.

¶31

3.The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the founder trustee had executed the will, which cannot be disputed.

¶32

Page3 of 6

¶33

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

¶34

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶35

4.In view of the rival submissions this Court is of the view that the dispute with regard to the validity of the will cannot be adjudicated in this Revision and ought not to have been adjudicated by the first respondent. Hence, this Court suggested to the learned counsels on either side that an independent person can be appointed to administer the temple until the rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

¶36

5.The learned counsels on either side agreed to the said proposal and suggested the names of Dr.A.Somasundaram (Advocate, 41, Law Chamber, District Court Buildings, Madurai – 625 020) and the fourth respondent herein one Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, who was impleaded subsequently pursuant to the orders of this Court.

¶37

6.In view of the same, the impugned order is set aside. Dr.A.Somasundaram and Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, the fourth respondent are hereby directed to be in-charge of the temple trust, until there is any order of the competent civil Court determining the rights of the parties. It is open to the above two persons to consult any person for the said purpose, including the members of the Steering Committee.

¶38

__________ Page4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶41

7.The Revision is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶42

23-02-2026

¶43

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

¶44

1.The Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer Jawaharlal Nehru Road, (Near Head Post Office), Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu 602 001.

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police Manavala Nagar Police Station, Manavala Nagar, Thiruvallur District - 602 002. 3.Dr.A.Somasundaram, 41, Law Chamber, District Court Buildings, Madurai – 625 020.

¶46

__________ Page5 of 6

¶47

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

¶48

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025

¶49

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

¶50

TSG

¶51

CRL RC No. 1627 of 2025 & Crl.M.P.Nos.16640 & 18135 of 2025