Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1056 (MAD)

N. Muthuvali v. Joint Commissioner

2001-09-11

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2001
Judgment : 1. The petitioner, is the son of one Mariappa Pulavar, who was functioning as hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Vazhavanthamman Koil, Vazhavanthapuri, Sankarankoi1 Taluk, Tirunelveli District. By proceedings of the second respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.18667/2000-1/AA1 dated 9.1.2001, the petitioner’s father was removed from the post of hereditary trustee of the said temple due to certain allegations and charges levelled against him. In consequence of the said proceedings dated 9.1.2001, the second respondent , by even dated proceedings in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No. 18667/2000-2/AA1, appointed the third respondent as a fit person of the said temple and aggrieved by the appointment of the third respondent as fit person of Arulmighu Vazhavanthamman Koil, Vazhavanthapuri, Sankarankoi1 Taluk, Tirunelveli District, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent regarding the impugned order passed by him in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.18667/2000-2/AA1 and 2 dated 9.1.2001, to quash the same and to direct the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as hereditary trustee of Arulmighu Vazhavanthamman Koil, Vazhavanthapuram, Sankarankoi1 Ta1uk , Tirunelve1i District. 2. Mr. P.Senthurpandian, learned counse1 for the petitioner, placing re1iance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dated 17.10.1994 made in W.A.No.440 of 1994 and W.P. No.20075 of 1993 , which are related to the appointment of hereditary trustee of the very impugned temple, contends that after the removal of the hereditary trustee, even though the post of hereditary trustee becomes vacant permanently, the next line of succession for the said post shall be entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee, and there is no necessity, whatsoever, for the next hereditary trustee, to make an application for appointment as hereditary trustee under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Ch aritable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’), in the absence of any rival claim. As there is no rival claim to the post of hereditary trustee of the said temple after the removal of the father of the petitioner, namely, Mariappa Pulavar from the post of hereditary trustee, the petitioner, being next in the line of succession, is entitled to succeed to the said office of the hereditary trustee. 3. As there is no rival claim to the post of hereditary trustee of the said temple after the removal of the father of the petitioner, namely, Mariappa Pulavar from the post of hereditary trustee, the petitioner, being next in the line of succession, is entitled to succeed to the said office of the hereditary trustee. 3. Per contra, Mr.G.Sukumaran, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, inviting my attention to the explanation to Section 54(3) of the Act, contends that after the removal of the father of the petitioner from the post of hereditary trustee, the petitioner cannot assume the office of hereditary trustee without making an application for being appointed as hereditary trustee under the Act. 4. Mr. S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, at whose instance the impugned proceedings dated 9.1.2001 was said to have been passed, referring the order of this Court dated 10.10.2000 made in W.P.No.3597 of 1997 and W.M.P.No.25302 of 2000, contends that once the father of the petitioner is removed from the post of hereditary trustee, the petitioner, who is next in the line of succession, is also disqualified and is barred to assume the office of hereditary trustee of the temple. 5. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6. Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religions and Charitable Endowments Act, deals with filling up of vacancies for the post of hereditary trustee, according to which, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office . 7. This Court, in Prem Anand v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. reported in 1990 (1) LW 144 , interpreting Section 54 of the Act, has held as follows: “A fit person had been appointed earlier when the proceedings were pending as against the petitioner’s father. The petitioner had applied to the first respondent that he being the person entitled to succeed his father as hereditary trustee, should be appointed and no fit person should be appointed in that place. The petitioner had applied to the first respondent that he being the person entitled to succeed his father as hereditary trustee, should be appointed and no fit person should be appointed in that place. The first respondent passed an order on 15.3.1989 to the effect that the appointment of fit person was only a temporary measure which would not impinge on the right of the petitioner to succeed when the permanent vacancy arises under S. 54(1) of the Act. The petitioner was, therefore, requested to wait till the enquiry against his father was over. After the enquiry was over and the petitioner’s father was removed by order of the first respondent on 24.7.1989, the petitioner sought for a direction from the first respondent to the fit person to hand over charge to the petitioner herein as the next hereditary trustee. The petitioner received an order from the first respondent on 22.8.1999 that h e should apply to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate orders under S.54(1) of the Act as the Deputy Commissioner is the competent Authority. The petitioner sent a reply through his advocate on 1.9.1989 inviting the attention of the first respondent to the position that there is no necessity for making any application for the succeeding hereditary trustee and that succession is automatic as recognised by the provisions of the Act. According to the petitioner, there is no reply so far to the said communication. Under S.54 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, when a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of the hereditary trustee of a religious institution, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed to the office. There is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. 8. There is no necessity, whatever, for the next hereditary trustee to make an application for being appointed under the Act. 8. Since the explanation to Section 54(3) of the Act contemplates that the Joint Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner shall have due regard to the claim of the members of the family, if any, entitled to succeed to the office of hereditary trustee, a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.10.1994 made in W.A.No.440 of 1994 and W.P.No.20075 of 1993, following the decision in Prem Amand v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. reported in 1990 (1) LW 144 , held that in the absence of rival claimants, the next member of the family need not get a declaration that he is a hereditary trustee. 9. In view of the above ratio laid down by this Court in Prem Anand v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. reported in 1990 (1) LW 144 and by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19.10.1994 made in W.A.No.440 of 1994 and W.P.No.20075 of 1993, I am unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned Special Government Pleader and that of the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. Therefore, I am satisfied that in the absence of any rival claim to the office of the hereditary trustee of the impugned temple, the petitioner is entitled to succeed to the post of hereditary trustee, as he being the next in the line of succession after the removal of his father, and there is no necessity whatsoever for the petitioner to make an application for appointment as hereditary trustee of the said temple under the Act. Since admittedly the petitioner had informed the second respondent on 13.1.2001 itself that he had immediately assumed office as hereditary trustee after the removal of his father by the impugned proceedings dated 9.1.2001, the appointment of the third respondent as fit person in the impugned temple is not sustainable in law. Hence the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.11615 and 11616 of 2001 are closed.