High Court · 2025

W.P.No.4352 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.4352 of 2025M.Rajamanikam... PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department 119, Uthamar Gandhi Rd, Thousand Lights West Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Rajaji Nagar, 3rd Cross, Rayakottai Road, Krishnagiri, Krishangiri District.3.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Palagai Karagam Thirukovil Belagonda Palli, Denkani Kottai Taluk Krishnagiri District. ....RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's lawful possession over the Writ Petition schedule property based on his representation dated 08.01.2025. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.P.Satheesh KumarFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 (HR & CE)ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed for directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's lawful possession over the Writ Petition schedule property, based on his representation, dated 08.01.2025.2. The claim of the petitioner is that the property belongs to two individuals, who are the sons of a Poojari. By a registered deed of mortgage, bearing document No.2671 of 1944, the property was mortgaged in favour of the petitioner's grand-father. Thereafter, the mortgagors neither redeemed the property nor repaid the debt. The petitioner's grand-father and thereafter, the petitioner's father and thereafter, the petitioner are in possession of the property in the capacity of the mortgagees. Subsequently, recognising their long standing position, patta has also been issued in the name of the petitioner 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025in the year 1984 itself. Therefore, now the authorities cannot contend that the property belongs to the temple and take possession from the petitioner. In any event, the authorities cannot take law into their own hands and take possession without following the due process of law. 3. Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in this case, the property is a Devadayam property, that is reflected in the original A-register. A copy of the A- register is also produced before this Court. In Devadhayam property, if the Poojaris are given the Kudivaram that by itself will not give title to them and the title will vest only with the temple. Accordingly, all along the properties are treated only as a temple property. Even the patta that is produced by the petitioner stands only in the name of Sri Gangadevar Kovil. Therefore, the property belongs only to the temple. They will take possession only by following the due process of law under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 4. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the patta was given only in the individual's name, because, the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025petitioner was also acting as a Dharmakarta, so as to describe his name, the name of the temple was also mentioned. The very fact that mentioning of the names of two persons, namely, Muniyan and his son M.Rajamanikam would itself show that the patta is not given in the name of the temple. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. On the one hand, it can be seen that the petitioner is not claiming title to the property, but he is claiming only possession as a mortgagee. It is also to be noted that eventhough it is claimed that the alleged mortgagors did not repay the loan, till date the petitioner has also not taken any steps to recover the loan or to bring the mortgage property for sale. Be that as it may, when the petitioner's grand-father had obtained mortgage in respect of the said property, it is stated that the petitioner and his father were subsequently the Dharmakarthas of the temple also. 7. On a perusal of the A-Register, it is categorically mentioned 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025that the property is a Devadhayam property. The patta that is produced by the petitioner himself categorically reads as follows: “jh;kg[hp khtl;lk;. njd;fdpnfhl;il tl;lk;. bey;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy;. _ f';fhnjth; nfhtpy; jw;fhy jh;kfh;jht[f;F bfhLf;fg;gl;l gl;lh/ ”8. Merely because three lines below that the names are mentioned as Munniyan and M.Rajamanikam, it will never be assumed that it is given to them in the individual capacity. The patta clearly reads that it is in the name of the temple. Even the computerised patta again states the name of the temple and describe the petitioner as the Dharmkartas of the temple. Even the Village Administrative Officer has certified that even in the village accounts, the property is described as Sri Gangadevar Kovil, Tharkala Dharmakatha, Munniyan and M.Rajamanikam. Therefore, no where in the records, it is mentioned as if the property belongs to the petitioner. Even the petitioner does not claim any title, but only possession thereof.9. In view thereof, already this Court, in the Hon'ble Division 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025Bench judgment, in W.A.Nos.2487, 2054, 2432 of 2023 etc., has already decided that in respect of the similar Devadhayams, the predominant title will vest only with the temple and not with the Poojaris. Therefore, the Poojari's sons have no right, title or interest to mortgage the temple property. In any event, since the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property, the respondents have to follow the procedure mandated under law. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Authorities will issue due show cause notice under Section 78/79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and take further action. 10. Recording the said statement, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 10.02.2025Neutral Citation : No dnaTo 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 20251.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department 119, Uthamar Gandhi Rd, Thousand Lights West Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Rajaji Nagar, 3rd Cross, Rayakottai Road, Krishnagiri, Krishangiri District.3.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Palagai Karagam Thirukovil Belagonda Palli, Denkani Kottai Taluk Krishnagiri District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. dnaW.P.No.4352 of 202510.02.20258/8

W.P.No.4352 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.No.4352 of 2025M.Rajamanikam... PetitionerVs.1.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department 119, Uthamar Gandhi Rd, Thousand Lights West Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Rajaji Nagar, 3rd Cross, Rayakottai Road, Krishnagiri, Krishangiri District.3.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Palagai Karagam Thirukovil Belagonda Palli, Denkani Kottai Taluk Krishnagiri District. ....RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's lawful possession over the Writ Petition schedule property based on his representation dated 08.01.2025. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.P.Satheesh KumarFor Respondents: Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 (HR & CE)ORDERThis Writ Petition is filed for directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's lawful possession over the Writ Petition schedule property, based on his representation, dated 08.01.2025.2. The claim of the petitioner is that the property belongs to two individuals, who are the sons of a Poojari. By a registered deed of mortgage, bearing document No.2671 of 1944, the property was mortgaged in favour of the petitioner's grand-father. Thereafter, the mortgagors neither redeemed the property nor repaid the debt. The petitioner's grand-father and thereafter, the petitioner's father and thereafter, the petitioner are in possession of the property in the capacity of the mortgagees. Subsequently, recognising their long standing position, patta has also been issued in the name of the petitioner 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025in the year 1984 itself. Therefore, now the authorities cannot contend that the property belongs to the temple and take possession from the petitioner. In any event, the authorities cannot take law into their own hands and take possession without following the due process of law. 3. Per contra, Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in this case, the property is a Devadayam property, that is reflected in the original A-register. A copy of the A- register is also produced before this Court. In Devadhayam property, if the Poojaris are given the Kudivaram that by itself will not give title to them and the title will vest only with the temple. Accordingly, all along the properties are treated only as a temple property. Even the patta that is produced by the petitioner stands only in the name of Sri Gangadevar Kovil. Therefore, the property belongs only to the temple. They will take possession only by following the due process of law under Section 78 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. 4. In reply thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the patta was given only in the individual's name, because, the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025petitioner was also acting as a Dharmakarta, so as to describe his name, the name of the temple was also mentioned. The very fact that mentioning of the names of two persons, namely, Muniyan and his son M.Rajamanikam would itself show that the patta is not given in the name of the temple. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 6. On the one hand, it can be seen that the petitioner is not claiming title to the property, but he is claiming only possession as a mortgagee. It is also to be noted that eventhough it is claimed that the alleged mortgagors did not repay the loan, till date the petitioner has also not taken any steps to recover the loan or to bring the mortgage property for sale. Be that as it may, when the petitioner's grand-father had obtained mortgage in respect of the said property, it is stated that the petitioner and his father were subsequently the Dharmakarthas of the temple also. 7. On a perusal of the A-Register, it is categorically mentioned 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025that the property is a Devadhayam property. The patta that is produced by the petitioner himself categorically reads as follows: “jh;kg[hp khtl;lk;. njd;fdpnfhl;il tl;lk;. bey;Yhh; fpuhkj;jpy;. _ f';fhnjth; nfhtpy; jw;fhy jh;kfh;jht[f;F bfhLf;fg;gl;l gl;lh/ ”8. Merely because three lines below that the names are mentioned as Munniyan and M.Rajamanikam, it will never be assumed that it is given to them in the individual capacity. The patta clearly reads that it is in the name of the temple. Even the computerised patta again states the name of the temple and describe the petitioner as the Dharmkartas of the temple. Even the Village Administrative Officer has certified that even in the village accounts, the property is described as Sri Gangadevar Kovil, Tharkala Dharmakatha, Munniyan and M.Rajamanikam. Therefore, no where in the records, it is mentioned as if the property belongs to the petitioner. Even the petitioner does not claim any title, but only possession thereof.9. In view thereof, already this Court, in the Hon'ble Division 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025Bench judgment, in W.A.Nos.2487, 2054, 2432 of 2023 etc., has already decided that in respect of the similar Devadhayams, the predominant title will vest only with the temple and not with the Poojaris. Therefore, the Poojari's sons have no right, title or interest to mortgage the temple property. In any event, since the petitioner claims to be in possession of the property, the respondents have to follow the procedure mandated under law. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that the Authorities will issue due show cause notice under Section 78/79 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 and take further action. 10. Recording the said statement, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. 10.02.2025Neutral Citation : No dnaTo 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 20251.The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department 119, Uthamar Gandhi Rd, Thousand Lights West Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.2.The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Rajaji Nagar, 3rd Cross, Rayakottai Road, Krishnagiri, Krishangiri District.3.The Executive Officer Arulmigu Palagai Karagam Thirukovil Belagonda Palli, Denkani Kottai Taluk Krishnagiri District. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.4352 of 2025D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. dnaW.P.No.4352 of 202510.02.20258/8