JUDGMENT (Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling of the entire records pertaining to the issuance of the impugned proceedings Na.ka.No.A2/486/2012, dated 10.08.2017 by the third respondent and quash the same and to forbear the respondents herein not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Sthanic Archaka between the 16th to 20th day of every English Calendar Month in Arulmigu Mangalanathasamy Temple Situate at Thiru Uthirakosamangai, Ramnad District.) W.P.(MD) No.5246 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to allow the petitioner to perform Pooja, as an Archagar at Arulmigu Mangalanathaswamy Temply, Thiru Uthiragosamangai, Ramnad District following the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent dated 28.07.1999 and 11.04.2004.) W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records pertaining to the issuance of the impugned proceedings in Na.ka.No.A2/486/2012, dated 10.08.2017 by the third respondent and quash the same and to forbear the respondents herein not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Sthanic Archaka between 16th to 20th day of every English Calendar Month in Arulmigu Mangalanathasamy Temple Situate at Thiru Uthirakosamangai, Ramnad District. 2. W.P.(MD) No.5246 of 2019 has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform pooja as an Archagar at Arulmigu Mangalanathaswamy Temple, Thiru Uthiragosamangai, Ramnad District following the proceedings of the third respondent dated 28.07.1999 and 11.04.2004. 3. The issue involved in these writ petitions are one and the same, these Writ Petition are taken up together for final disposal. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they are the Herediatry archarkars in Arulmighu Mangalanathasamy temple situated at Thiru Uthirakosamangai, Ramnad District from the year 1967. The third respondent is the Hereditray Trustee of the said temple. The said temple consists of four principal Dieties viz., Mangalanathaswamy, Mangalanayagi Ambal, Natarajan and Sahasaralingam respectively. Originally the temple rituals and pooja for the Presiding Dieties were conducted by M/s. Pichumani Gurukal, Mangaleswara Gurukal, Mylsami Gurukkal and Chellappa Gurukal alone till the year 1955. The above mentioned Gurukals were performing their duties in turns amongst the said prinicipal deities for a period of 10 days each. Originally the temple rituals and pooja for the Presiding Dieties were conducted by M/s. Pichumani Gurukal, Mangaleswara Gurukal, Mylsami Gurukkal and Chellappa Gurukal alone till the year 1955. The above mentioned Gurukals were performing their duties in turns amongst the said prinicipal deities for a period of 10 days each. One of the Gurukal, namely, Sivaswamimangaleswara Gurukal through his wife Saraswathi had two sons namely Adichidambara Gurukal and Chandrasekara Gurukal and through his second wife he had two sons namely Devendra Gurukal and Bageeratha Gurukkal. After the demise of Sri Sivaswamimangaleswara Gurukkal his son Adhichidambara Gurukal took over the said assignment along with brother and step brothers. Thereafter, Adhichidambara Gurukal could not continue to perform pooja due to his old age and his sons viz., the petitioner along with his three brothers had been performing the poojas in the place of their father by sharing their father’s turn amongst themselves. This being so, on 22.02.1967, the Bagreetha Gurukal relinquished his right of performing pooja in the temple mentioned above vide a relinquishment deed bearing No.10/1967 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Keezhakarai. On the representation from the said Adhichidambara Gurukkal, the Administrative Secretary of the Ramanathapuram Kingdom, the hereditary trustee of the temple, vide his proceedings in ROC No.1/2981/67 dated 02.03.1968 had directed Devendra Gurukkal to hand over 1 1/8 days share of Bagreetha Gurukal's right of performing pooja in the temple to Rajamani Gurukal. Thereafter, the Rajamani Gurukal along with his brothers and father had been in enjoyment of Bagreetha Gurukal’s slot. During the year 1999, the trustee of the said temple had conducted a meeting with archakas to determine the pooja turns for the archakars of the temple vide proceedings in Na.Ka. No.A5/1999 dated 28.07.199 and the turns were fixed amongst the families of seven archakas only. On 11.04.2012, the Diwan cum Administrative Officer of the said temple regulating the turns amongst the archakas had suo motu passed a proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A1/486/2012, by which, he has rearranged the slots contemplated in Na.Ka.No.A5/19/1999 dated 18.06.1999. In the re-arranged slot Mangaleswar Gurukal and Devendra Gurukal were given dates/slots from 16 to 20 of every month and Chidambaram Gurukal family, Chandrasekara family Devendra Gurukal family and Bageeratha Gurukkal family were allotted 1¼ days each. In the re-arranged slot Mangaleswar Gurukal and Devendra Gurukal were given dates/slots from 16 to 20 of every month and Chidambaram Gurukal family, Chandrasekara family Devendra Gurukal family and Bageeratha Gurukkal family were allotted 1¼ days each. Aggrieved over the allotment of slot to Bageeratha Gurukkal, the Mangaleswara Gurukal, elder brother of Rajamani Gurukal filed a review petition, seeking review of the order passed on 11.04.2012 by an application dated 20.04.2012. The Diwan cum Administrative Secretary after conducting a detailed enquiry had passed the proceedings in Na.Ka. No.A1/486/2012 dated 07.05.2012, whereby, the mistaken inclusion Bageeratha Gurukkal name stood corrected and the name of Mangleshwara Gurukkal was incorporated in the place of the said Bagreetha Gurukal. On 01.06.2012, Bagreetha Gurukal submitted a memorandum to the Assistant Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowment Board, seeking his erst while right for pooja in the said temple as one of the legal heir of Late Sivamangaleswar Gurukal. On 06.08.2012, the Diwan cum Administrative Secretary of said temple vide his proceeding Na.Ka.No.A1/486/2012 had passed an order permitting the Bageeratha Gurukal to perform pooja for 1 ¼ day commencing from the night of the 19th day and the whole of 20th day of every English Calendar Month without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the Act. This order was also passed without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, Mangaleswara Gurukal preferred a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram , seeking declaration of the order dated 06.08.2012 as null and void, The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram on 07.07.2012, dismissed the said suit holding that civil Court's jurisdiction is barred under Section 55(4) of the Act and that if any person is aggrieved by the said order, has to prefer an appeal before the Joint Commissioner as per Section 55(4) of the Act. In the meanwhile, on 10.08.2017, the trustee had passed an order in tune to the earlier order passed by the Diwan cum Administrative Secretary dated 06.08.2012, challenging the same W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has been filed. Claiming that as per the order dated 28.07.1999, Devendra Gurukal has to be allowed to perform 1 ¼ days poojas, but he was restrained from pooja after the order dated 10.08.2017, Devendra Gurukal has filed W.P. (MD) No.5246 of 2019. 5. Claiming that as per the order dated 28.07.1999, Devendra Gurukal has to be allowed to perform 1 ¼ days poojas, but he was restrained from pooja after the order dated 10.08.2017, Devendra Gurukal has filed W.P. (MD) No.5246 of 2019. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.18796 of 2017 submitted that the proceedings passed by the third respondent is bad in law as the same is repuganant to the provisions contemplated in the Madras Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 2012. Further, it is against the earlier order passed in the year 1967 allocating the slots to the Archakars vide ROCC 1/2981/67 dated 02.03.1967 and without revoking the same, additional order cannot be passed. The third respondent following the dismissal of the suit by the civil Court in O.S. No.102 of 2012 had passed the second impugned order. The civil suit has no relevance to the present case on facts. As per the impugned order, the fourth respondent has been given slot from 19th night to 20th day of English Calendar month. Since it is the petitioner’s turn, he had challenged the same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 would further submit that the petitioner is neither a paid servant nor a person appointed by the third respondent. The petitioner along with his brothers was sharing the turn of their father for five days between 16th to 20th day of English Calendar month as per proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A5/19/99 dated 18.06.1999 which was followed till issuance of the impugned proceedings. The third respondent had acted without jurisdiction / excess of jurisdiction and had acted in flagrant disregard of law and rules or the principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decision on Surya Devrai vs Ram Chanderlal reported in AIR 2003 SC 3044 . He also referred to the sale deed in Document No.10 of 1967 dated 22.02.1967, the proceedings of the Samasthanam and various other proceedings from the year 1978 to 2017, copy of the plaint of the civil suit and the order of the judgment passed in civil suit in O.S.No.102 of 2012, which are filed in the form of typed set of documents. 7. 7. The third respondent filed counter stating that there are 54 temples under the control of the Ramanathapuram Samasthanam Devasthanam and the third respondent is administering the same. The temple of Mangalanathaswamy is situated at Thiru Utharakosamangai, which is one among the 54 temples. The petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has suppressed many material facts and without impleading necessary and proper party to the proceedings, has filed the petition. Further, the said petitioner has obtained interim injunction restraining the legally entitled archakas from discharging their during the period from 16th to 20th of every English Calendar Month. By obtaining the order of this Court, the petitioner had disturbed the routines and is attempting to usurp the rights of other branch, which ultimately creates chaos and confusion in doing the routine pooja to be carried out on all the 365 days without fail in the temple. The petitioner Rajamani Gurukal is the younger brother of Mangaleswarsa Gurukal and he has three more brothers namely Somu Gurukal, Venkataraman Gurukal and Chandrasekara Gurukal. They are all the five sons of Adichidambara Gurukal. The issue raised by him is that his paternal grand father has two wifes and his legal heirs are as follows: SIVASAMY MANGALESWARA GURUKKAL W1 W2Saraswathi W2Saraswathi Seethalakshmi Adichidambara Chandrasekara Devendra Bageeratha 1.Mangaleswaran 1.Ravi 1.Kumar 1.Raju 2.Rajamani 2.Kannadasan 2.Sundar 2.Vijay 3.Somu 3.Mangaleswaran 3.Raja 3.Madan 4.Venkataraman 4.Suresh 5.Chandra Sekar 5.Ramesh Further the poojas to the deities in all the 365 days in year is divided into six kaalams as follows: 5.30 am to 6.00 am Thiruvananthal 7.00 am to 7.30 am Vilaapoojai 9.00 am to 10.30 am Kaalai Sandhi 12.30 pm to 1.00 pm Uchchikaalam 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm Saayarakshai 8.00 pm to 9.00 pm Ardhajaamam 8. The petitioners along with other pangalis all together entitled to perform Pooja for 5 days in a month. The said 5 days is divided as each 1 ¼ day. The petitioners along with other pangalis all together entitled to perform Pooja for 5 days in a month. The said 5 days is divided as each 1 ¼ day. Between 16 to 20th of English Calendar month, the petitioners and their pangalis were accommodated as follows: a) 1 full day on 16th and ¼ day on 17th – Adichidambareswara Gurukkal (16th – From 5.30 am to 17th 7.00 am) b) ¾ day on 17th and ½ day on 18th – Chandrasekara Gurukkal (17th From 7.00 am to 18th 10.00 am) c) ½ day on 18th and ¾ day on 19th – Devendra Gurukkal (18th From 10.00 am to 19th 5.00 pm) d) ¼ day on 19th and 1 day on 20th – Bageeratha Gurukkal (19th From 5.00 pm to 20th 9.00 pm) 9. Rajamani Gurukal also filed proceedings before the Civil Court and HR & CE Court thorugh his brother. The Rajamani and his brother had stalled the other three branches namely Chandrasekara Gurukal, Devendra Gurukal and Bageeeratha Guruakal from discharging their duties. On 18.11.2017 under the colour of order of injunction, the Rajamani Gurukal failed to hand over key to the next branch namely Devendra Gurukal. His brother Mangaleswara Gurukal instituted a suit in O.S. NO. 102 of 2012 before the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram which was dismissed on 07.07.2017. Thereafter, he has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram, which was also dismissed on 21.06.2019. After the order of the Civil Court, the third respondent has passed an order in Na.Ka. NO.A-2/486/2012, dated 10.08.2017, re-arranging the slots of the archarkars as per the slots as per hereditary rights. The Mangaleswara Gurukal had filed a appeal before the Joint Commissioner HR and CE in A.P.No. 1 of 2017, challenging the order passed by the third respondent on 10.08.2017. Thus, in the three forums, namely, before the civil Court, Joint Commissioner Court and before this Court the Rajamani Gurukal and his brothers filed one petition after another. As far as the order of the civil suit is concerned, it was dismissed. Further, they filed an interim application in M.P.No. 02 of 2017 and obtained an order of interim stay of the proceedings of the third respondent and the stay of the impugned order has been challenged. As far as the order of the civil suit is concerned, it was dismissed. Further, they filed an interim application in M.P.No. 02 of 2017 and obtained an order of interim stay of the proceedings of the third respondent and the stay of the impugned order has been challenged. By successfully filing, petitions, before various forums, the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 and his brother group successfully denied the other legal heirs to perform their Archakar duty as per their slot. 10. Rajamani Gurukal and his brother have filed three petitions around September 2012. Appeal before Joint Commissioner Court in appeal No.1 of 2017 was filed on 01.09.2017 and W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has been filed on 07.09.2017. Strangely in none of these petition, the pendency of the other petitions is mentioned or referred and it is projected as though all are independent petitions. It is to be seen that civil suit filed by Mangaleswara Gurukal independently and in the joint commissioner Court, Mangaleshwara Gurukal along with Soma Gurukal filed the appeal and Rajamani Gurukal has filed W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017. Further, it is submitted that the order passed by the trustee is perfectly in order and no pooja right can be sold for consideration. 11. Learned counsel for the third respondent has submitted that it is the admitted case of the petitioners that Bagreetha Gurukal on 22.02.1967 had sold the right of performing pooja for consideration. The power of trustee under Section 55(1) of the Act is that the power is to appoint office holder and servants in religious institutions is available. Further, the office holders, include Archakas and poojaris. Thus, the third respondent has authority as per the Act to appoint, allocate the Archarkars including Gurukals to perform pooja and allocating their respective slots. In view of the same, the issuance of the impugned order cannot be interferred and hence, the writ petitions may be dismissed. 12. The fourth respondent in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has filed counter and submitted that in respect of the very same issue one of the brother of petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 namely Mangaleshwar Gurukal filed civil suit in O.S.No.102 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Ramanatapuram and it was dismissed after full fledge trial. 12. The fourth respondent in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 has filed counter and submitted that in respect of the very same issue one of the brother of petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017 namely Mangaleshwar Gurukal filed civil suit in O.S.No.102 of 2012 before the District Munsif Court, Ramanatapuram and it was dismissed after full fledge trial. In the said suit the his brother Mangaleshwara Gurukal was examined himself as plaintiff and through him the sale deed executed by the Bageeratha Gurukal dated 22.06.1967 marked as Ex.P.A.1 and various orders passed by the Samasthanam Devasthanam have been marked as Exs.A2 to A5. The fourth respondent has examined himself as DW2 along with his brother. The Civil Court after recording the evidence, after full fledged trial, finding that the suit is not maintainable in view of section 55 (4) of the H.R. & C.E. Act dismissed the same. The Rajamani Gurukal's brother aggrieved against the same filed an appeal in AS No. 34 of 2017, which also came to be dismissed. Three of the brothers have filed appeal before the Joint Commissioner in Appeal No.1 of 2017 and it is still pending. They have also filed an Interlocutary application in M.P.No. 2/17 before the Joint Commissioner on 01.09.2017 and using the same not allowing other gurukals to perform the pooja. Further it is to be seen that the sale deed in document No.10/1967 is unsustainable and the document is opposed to public policy. More over, the document has been obtained from fourth respondent even before the fourth respondent attained majority. Further he adopted all lines of arguments of the third respondent. 13. Finally, the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the order has been passed by the third respondent as a hereditary trustee which is perfectly in order and if any person is aggrieved against the same has to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner under Section 55(4) of the Act. Rajamani Gurukal's brother had challenged the impugned order and filed a petition in AP No.1 of 2017 and it is pending before the second respondent. In view of the same, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 14. Rajamani Gurukal's brother had challenged the impugned order and filed a petition in AP No.1 of 2017 and it is pending before the second respondent. In view of the same, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 14. It is seen that the impugned order has been passed by the third respondent and the third respondent as the Hereditary Trustree, as per Section 55(1) of the Act, is empowered to appoint officer bearers and servants in the religious institutions. The servant shall include Archakars and poojaris. Further, the petitioners admit that the third respondent is the Hereditary Trustee and in view of the same, the petitioners cannot have any objection, quarrel or claim against the impugned order passed by the third respondent. In Rangaswami Battar vs. Alasinga Batttar alia Veeraraghave Batter and others [(1935) 69 MLJ 888], relied on by the learned counsel for the third respondent, a Division Bench of this Court held that transfer and alienation of hereditary religious right cannot be transferred for consideration moreso for pecuniary consideration. It is apposite to refer to the privy council dictum in Rajah Varmah Valis vs Ravi Vurmah Kunhi Kutty [1 Mad 235 (P.C.)], “no custom which could qualify the general principle of law that such trust were inalienable had been established in the case and that the case disclosed that the sale was for the pecuniary advantage of trustee, a circumstance which would invalidate any such custom if it had been shown”. 15. It is the admitted case of the petitioners that fourth respondent on 22.02.1967 had sold his rights for valid consideration. On perusal of the sale deed it is seen that “M. Baghiravathan “TAMIL” 16. It is an admitted fact that Bageeratha Gurukkal's right has been purchased by Rajamani Gurukal's father from the fourth respondent for valid consideration. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be questioned before this Court. 17. In view of the same, the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17951 of 2017 stands dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18. In view of dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017, holding that the religious office cannot be transferred, Bageeratha Gurugal entitled to his slot of performing poojas. Hence, each of the four sons of Sivasamy Mangaleswara Gurugal have 1¼ days slot for performing poojas. Hence, Devendra Gurugal is entitled for the said share, he cannot be prevented from performing poojas. 18. In view of dismissal of W.P.(MD) No.17951 of 2017, holding that the religious office cannot be transferred, Bageeratha Gurugal entitled to his slot of performing poojas. Hence, each of the four sons of Sivasamy Mangaleswara Gurugal have 1¼ days slot for performing poojas. Hence, Devendra Gurugal is entitled for the said share, he cannot be prevented from performing poojas. W.P.(MD) No.5246 of 2019 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.