JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to conduct enquiry and to cancel and registration of Sri Aanur Amman, Sri Muniyappaswamy Trust registered with the third respondent in Book IV, Document No.4 of 2024 dated 27.01.2024 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 01.02.2024 within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.) 1. Should the Writ Court intervene and stop the wedding proposed to be held next week? The bride and the bride-groom happen to be trees: (Neem and Peepul). The venue is the campus of the temple dedicated to Arulmigu Aanur Amman in Panchamadevi Pudur Village, Pugaloor Taluk, Karur District. 2. The writ petitioner opposes on two grounds: (a) the neem tree is younger and (b) the date chosen is not auspicious. 3. I find the idea of performing marriage between trees deeply sacred. For a moment, let us forget the devotional and religious aspects associated with the event. Trees are an integral part of nature. We cannot exist for a second if trees are not there. Peter Wohlleben has written a beautiful book “The Hidden Life of Trees What They Feel How They Communicate Discoveries from a Secret World” There is one chapter devoted to the theme of love and mating among trees. 4. Peepul tree is considered as male while neem tree is considered as female. In this case, the neem tree is older. I, however, find the objection based on age difference as grounded on outdated patriarchal notions. Someone in the bar whispered aloud that the cricketing hero Sachin Tendulkar's wife is older to him by six years. The petitioner further claimed that Sri Raja Bhattar who is a high authority in theological matters had specifically opined that the proposed date is not an auspicious one. 5. Courts' only function is to adjudicate disputes. But not all disputes are amenable to adjudication. Only those issues that can be resolved by applying judicial manageable standards can be taken up for adjudication. I cannot render any decision on the appropriateness of the proposed union or the choice of the date. Consequently, I have to dismiss the miscellaneous petition to restrain the fourth respondent from conducting “Yeluthingal Seer Vila” from 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024. 6. The revenue authorities have convened a peace meeting this evening. I cannot render any decision on the appropriateness of the proposed union or the choice of the date. Consequently, I have to dismiss the miscellaneous petition to restrain the fourth respondent from conducting “Yeluthingal Seer Vila” from 18.03.2024 to 20.03.2024. 6. The revenue authorities have convened a peace meeting this evening. Both the parties have agreed to attend the same. I hope that the outstanding issues would be amicably resolved. 7. Sri Aanur Amman Trust was founded in March 2016 and it has been administering A/M.Aanur Amman Temple. It is not a public temple. It is worshiped by a group of families belonging to a particular section of Kongu Vellalar Community. The question that arises for consideration is whether the third respondent could have registered the fourth respondent trust. Arulmigu Sri Aanur Amman, Shri Muniyappaswamy Thirukkovil Trust was registered as Document No.10/2024 by the third respondent on 27.01.2024. It is a public religious and charitable trust. The registration has been done under Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908. The prayer in the writ petition is for cancellation of the registration. This obviously cannot be granted. Certainly, the authorities under the Registration Act, 1908 lack the power to do so. While the registration as such cannot be challenged, objection can rightly be taken to the name of the trust. Though there is no direct statutory provision governing the issue, the Writ Court can certainly refer to comparable provisions. Section 9 (1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 states that no society shall be registered by a name which is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a society in existence has been previously registered. I am more than satisfied that the name of the fourth respondent trust is substantially identical with the name of the society that was registered for the very same object in the year 2016. The office address of the first registered trust is shown as office address of the second registered trust also. These are clearly undesirable. The trust deed of Sri Aanur Amman, Shri Muniyappaswamy Trust is directed to be appropriately amended so that there is no identity with the name or office address of the first registered trust. 8. Sri Aanur Amman Trust which was first registered has been managing the Sri Aanur Amman Temple. A new trust cannot suddenly take over the administration of the temple. 8. Sri Aanur Amman Trust which was first registered has been managing the Sri Aanur Amman Temple. A new trust cannot suddenly take over the administration of the temple. That would amount to staging a coup and usurpation of power. It is declared that the administration of the temple will continue to vest in Sri Aanur Amman Trust. 9. The twin declaration given by me may not be of much consolation to Thiru.V.C.Ramakrishnan, who has filed this writ petition on behalf of the first registered trust. This trust originally comprised 21 members. One of them is no more. The remaining 20 are evenly divided. Each camp comprises 10 members. I wish there is a happy union between the two like peepul and neem but that is not to be. In fact, the office bearers of the first registered trust only have formed the second trust. This deadlock has to be resolved only before the jurisdictional Civil Court and not in writ jurisdiction. 10. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.