2026:MHC:1817Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

ORDERS RESERVED ON : 29.04.2026

ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 and

W.P.(MD)Nos.30377 of 2024, 13433, 13979, 14043, 14357 of 2025, 7729,

9976, 10020, 11935 & 12986 of 2026 and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.25547 of 2024, 9666, 9670, 10132, 10133, 10134,

10175, 10176, 10543, 10544 of 2025, 6303, 6306, 6854, 7848, 7849,

7850, 7872, 7874, 9733 & 9736 of 2026

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026:-

1.D.Thirupathy

2.D.Sivakumar

3.D.Muthuselvam ... Petitioners

-vs-

1.Mariappan,

Joint Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,

Madurai.

2.Pradeepa,

Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer,

Arulmigu Koodal Azhagar Thirukovil,

Madurai.

3.Karnan

Inspector, Madurai North,

HR & CE Department,

Ellis Nagar, Madurai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to

punish the contemnors/respondents for their wilful disobedience of the order

____________

Page 1 of 36

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

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.277 of 2026 dated 07.01.2026.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rajagopal

For R1 & R3 : Mr.J.K.Jayaseelan

Government Advocate

For R2 : Mr.S.Manohar

W.P.(MD)No.30377 of 2024:-

Vandiyoor Sri Nachiyarammal Vagaiyara

Religious Endowment,

Represented by its Managing Trustee,

M.Thiruppathi, S/o.Junior Muthusami Pillai,

Vandiyoor, Madurai East Taluk,

Madurai District. ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai - 600034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Madurai – 625002. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of

the first represent in A.P.No.35/2023/D2 dated 31.05.2024 confirming the

order passed by the second respondent in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.9290/2007-2/Aa1

dated 29.07.2021 and quash the same as illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional

and quash all the consequential proceedings of the 1

st

and 2

nd

respondents

and consequentially permit the petitioner to officiate the petitioner Trust as

the Hereditary Trustee and as Managing Trustee.

____________

Page 2 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

W.P.(MD)No.13433 of 2025:-

R.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

HR & CE Department,

Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Madurai.

3.The Fit Person,

Arulmighu Natcharammal Arakkatalai /

Executive Officer / Assistant Commissioner,

Arulmighu Koodal Alagar Thirukovil, Madurai.

4.D.Tamil Ganesan,

S/o.A.Dakshinamoorthy, Hereditary Trustee,

Nacharammal Trust, 1-5/32, Sanjeevi Nagar,

2

nd

Street, Anaiyur, Madurai-625 017.

[R4 is impleaded vide order dated 12.02.2026

made in W.M.P.(MD)No.13615 of 2025] ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the

impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.2278/2025/A1 dated 27.03.2025 issued

by second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second

respondent to record the name of the petitioner as Trustee to Arulmighu

Natcharammal Arakkatalai, Vandiyur.

____________

Page 3 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar

for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

For R4 : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian

W.P.(MD)No.13979 of 2025:-

T.Kamatchi ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

No.119, Nungampakkam High Road, Chennai – 34.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai.

3.The Fit Person,

Arulmigu Natcharammal Arakkattalai,

Executive Officer / Assistant Commissioner,

Arulmigu Koodal Alagar Thirukovil,

Madurai.

4. R.Meenakshi Sundaram,

Trustee,

Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai,

S/o.Ramalingam, No.108, Middle Street,

Kovilpappakudi, Podhumbu Post,

Madurai-625018 ... Respondents

[R4 is impleaded vide order dated 22.04.2026 in

W.M.P.(MD)No.9408 of 2026]

____________

Page 4 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of

the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2278/2025/A1 dated 27.03.2025 and

quash the same as illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and consequently

direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to officiate the

petitioner's Trust as the Hereditary Trustee and as Managing Trustee.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramesh

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

For R4 : Mr.M.Saravanan

W.P.(MD)No.14043 of 2025:-

Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai,

Rep. by its Trustee, R.Meenakshi Sundaram,

S/o.Ramalingam,

No.108, Middle Street,

Kovilpappakudi,

Podhumbu Post, Madurai - 625 018. ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai – 625 001.

____________

Page 5 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

3.The Assistant Commissioner /

Executive Officer / Thakkar,

Arulmigu Koodallalagar Perumal Temple,

Madurai.

4.R.Vijayakumar ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned

order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2278/2025/Aa1 dated

27.03.2025 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan

for Mr.P.Vinoth

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

For R4 : Mr.J.Anandkumar

for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar

W.P.(MD)No.14357 of 2025:-

R.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Chennai.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Madurai.

3.The Fit Person,

Arulmighu Natcharammal Arakkatalai /

____________

Page 6 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

Executive Officer / Assistant Commissioner,

Arulmighu Koodal Alagar Thirukovil, Madurai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to

the impugned notification of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.

2278/2025/A1 dated 06.05.2025 published on 07.05.2025 and quash the

same and consequently appoint the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee as next in

line of succession.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar

for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

W.P.(MD)No.7729 of 2026:-

Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai,

Rep. by its Trustee, R.Meenakshi Sundaram,

S/o.Ramalingam,

No.108, Middle Street,

Kovilpappakudi,

Podhumbu Post, Madurai - 625 018. ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai – 625 001.

____________

Page 7 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

3.The Assistant Commissioner /

Executive Officer / Thakkar,

Arulmigu Koodallalagar Perumal Temple,

Madurai.

4.R.Vijayakumar ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to

the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.

2278/2025/Aa1 dated 06.05.2025 and to quash the same, insofar as it invites

applications from the descendants of the Junior Muthusamy Pillai line and

consequently to direct the second respondent to recognise and appoint the

petitioner as Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai

representing the said branch.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Saravanan

for Mr.P.Vinoth

For R1 and R2 : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan

Government Advocate

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

For R4 : Mr.J.Anandkumar

for Mr.K.Vignesh Kumar

W.P.(MD)No.9976 of 2026:-

1.D.Thirupathy

2.D.Tamil Ganesan

3.D.Sivakumar

4.D.Muthuselvam ... Petitioners

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

____________

Page 8 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned

notification of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2278/2025/A1 dated

06.05.2025 published in newspaper and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rajagopal

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

W.P.(MD)No.10020 of 2026:-

S.Gopalakrishnan ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai.

3. R.Meenakshi Sundaram,

Trustee,

Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai,

S/o.Ramalingam, No.108, Middle Street,

Kovilpappakudi, Podhumbu Post,

Madurai-625018 ... Respondents

[R3 is impleaded vide order dated 22.04.2026 in

W.M.P.(MD)No.9409 of 2026]

____________

Page 9 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned

notification of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2278/2025/A1 dated

06.05.2025 published in daily newspaper Dinasudar and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.M.Saravanan

W.P.(MD)No.11935 of 2026:-

1.D.Thirupathy

2.D.Tamil Ganesan

3.D.Sivakumar

4.D.Muthuselvam ... Petitioners

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Uthamar Gandhi Salai,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Madurai. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to permit the

petitioner being the hereditary trustee representing the Senior Muthusamy

Pillai group, to perform Mandagapadi and Annadhanam at the Nachiyarammal

Trust Mandapam, Vandiyoor, Madurai District, during the ceremonial visit of

____________

Page 10 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

the Deity Lord Sri Kallazhagar, as part of Chithirai Festival on 01.05.2026 and

02.05.2026.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Rajagopal

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

W.P.(MD)No.12986 of 2026:-

D.Murugan ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

2.The Joint Commissioner,

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,

Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

3.Nacharammal Trust, Vandiyur,

Rep. by its Fit Person,

Executive Officer/Assistant Commissioner,

Arulmigu Koodalalagar Perumal Temple,

Madurai.

4.D.Tamil Ganesan

5.D.Thirupathy

6.D.Sivakumar

7.D.Muthuselvam ... Respondents

____________

Page 11 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to

the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.

2278/2025/Aa1, dated 06.05.2025 and to quash the same insofar as it invites

applications from the descendants of the Junior Muthusamy Pillai line and

consequently, to direct the second respondent to recognise and appoint the

petitioner as Hereditary Trustee of Arulmigu Nacharammal Kattalai

representing the said branch.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar

For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Sarangan

Additional Government Pleader

For R3 : Mr.S.Manohar

For R4 to R7 : Mr.D.Rajagopal

COMMON ORDER

A.The Common Facts :

1.1. All these Writ Petitions relate to 'Nacharammal Kattalai', a religious

endowment connected to Arulmigu Koodalazhagar Temple, Madurai and as

such are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

1.2. The prayers in each of the Writ Petitions are different and have to

be dealt with individually as per merits. However, certain background facts are

common, which may be noted and are as follows:

____________

Page 12 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

1.3. By a duly registered document dated 20.03.1923, an endowment

was created by three persons viz., (1) Nacharammal @ Vellaiammal, (2)

Ammapillai @ Rakkaye Ammal and (3) Seeniammal @ Andathaiammal. Upon

perusal of the document, it can be seen that one Ponnusankaran Pillai

married one Ammakutty ammal as his first wife. Thereafter, he married one

Mookayi ammal as his second wife. Through Mookayi Ammal, a daughter,

namely Pichaiammal, was born. After the death of the aforesaid two wives, for

want of a male descendant, Ponnusankaran Pillai married the aforesaid three

persons who have executed the document as his wives. However, through

Nacharammal, a girl child, namely Sethu @ Ponnammal, was born.

1.4. Under the said circumstances, the above dedication was made for

the maintenance of the Mandagapadi Mandapam and for the conduct of the

Mandagapadi of Lord Kallazhagar during the Chithirai festival. The details of

which were also mentioned in the deed. The properties mentioned therein were

dedicated. The said document also dealt with another purpose, namely, the

maintenance of the Samadhi of Ponnusankaran Pillai.

1.5. Thereafter, on 30.09.1955, a scheme was framed in O.A.No.111 of

1953 relating to the administration of the endowment, through hereditary

trusteeship. On 04.04.1967, by an order in O.A.No.3 of 1967, a modified

____________

Page 13 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

scheme was framed, whereby it is ordered that hereditary trustees will be

appointed from the three clans representing Senior Muthusamy Pillai, Junior

Muthusamy Pillai and Sundararaja / Velusamy Pillai branches, along with two

non-hereditary trustees.

1.6. By an order dated 14.02.1974, one Sethuraman was recognised as

hereditary trustee representing the Junior Muthusamy Pillai branch. By an

order dated 02.02.1993, M.Thiruppathi succeeded him as the hereditary

trustee in the Junior Muthusamy Pillai branch. After his suspension, on

15.02.2010, one Pichaiammal @ Kamatchiammal was recognised as hereditary

trustee representing the Junior Muthusamy Pillai branch. Thereafter, upon

petition that the said Pichaiammal@ Kamatchiammal was getting older and

was unable to discharge her functions, she was removed, and a fit person was

appointed. Further, inter se litigations are pending, and applications have also

been called for the further appointment of hereditary and non-hereditary

trustees. Aggrieved by all that, with various prayers, the present Writ Petitions

and a Contempt Petition have been filed.

B. Writ Petition (MD) No.30377 of 2024:

2. In the scheme of things, it is first essential to consider the Writ

Petition filed by one M.Thiruppathi, S/o A.Muthusamy Pillai, in W.P.(MD).No.

____________

Page 14 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

30377 of 2024. M.Thiruppathi is the grandson of Nacharammal, who was the

first person who executed the deed of endowment dated 23.04.1923. He was

recognised as a hereditary trustee with effect from 02.02.1993 and was

functioning as such. While so, by an order dated 25.01.2010, four charges

were levelled against him, and he was suspended from the hereditary

trusteeship. His explanation with reference to the said charges was called for.

All the charges are interconnected and relate to the sale of the endowed

properties to third persons as if they were his absolute private property.

2.1. The petitioner's explanation is that only the five legal heirs of Late

Dakshinamoorthy, who are the children of Anandam Pillai, had wrongly sold

the property. The petitioner is not a party to the sale. It is those persons who

have registered a sale agreement on 06.12.2005 vide document No.408 of

2007. While so, on 25.07.2007, the said M.Thiruppathi was abducted by

some persons in a car and by knife point he was taken to the Sub-Registrar

Office and was made to register a Power of Attorney. After, he came out of the

clutches of the said abductors, he cancelled the Power of Attorney on

30.07.2007. Thereafter, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner

and others, in crime No.590 of 2009 with reference to misappropriation,

breach of trust and forgery in respect of the endowed property. Thereafter,

when the said M. Thiruppathi was also charge-sheeted in C.C.No. 232 of 2015,

____________

Page 15 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

by an order dated 18.01.2019 made in Cr.MP.No. 3432 of 2017, he was

discharged from the criminal case. Therefore, the criminal court itself found

that he had no involvement in the charges and the charges were not proved.

2.2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted, and it was found that even

though the petitioner states that he was abducted to the Sub-Registrar's Office

and was compelled to execute the Power of Attorney, no action was taken by

the petitioner against the abductors. It was found that the petitioner had

executed a Power of Attorney with reference to the endowed properties on

25.07.2007 through the power agent, and, along with others, the endowed

property was sold in favour of the third parties by a sale deed dated

18.10.2007, registered as document No. 1080 of 2009. Therefore, the charges

were found proved, and a final order was passed on 29.07.2021 by the Joint

Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

Department, Madurai, removing him from the Office of Hereditary Trustee.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the

Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Chennai, in A.P.No.35/2023/D2, and the same was dismissed by an order

dated 31.05.2024. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition is filed.

____________

Page 16 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

2.3. It is specifically stated by the Writ Petitioner that he confines the

Writ Petition only to the principles of natural justice. The primary ground

raised is that during the course of the enquiry, the documents were not

specifically marked. The appellate authority ought to have given the petitioner

further opportunities. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out

the procedural infirmities and would also submit that the criminal court itself

had discharged the petitioner. It is his case that once the impugned orders are

quashed, all the other writ petitions would become infructuous.

2.4. The act contemplates the conduct of an enquiry. In accordance

with the rules, a charge memorandum was issued, an explanation was called

for, and an enquiry was conducted. The specific charge is clearly put across to

the petitioner. The petitioner has also answered that he had not voluntarily

executed the Power of Attorney through which the sale of the endowed

properties was made. It may be true that the criminal court, for want of

evidence beyond proof, including proof of conspiracy, etc., could have

discharged the petitioner. But, as far as the burden of proof with reference to

the removal of the petitioner from the hereditary trusteeship, the proof in the

departmental enquiry/statutory enquiry would only be preponderance of

probability.

____________

Page 17 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

2.5. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner, through his power

agent, has joined with others in selling the endowed property. Therefore, all

four charges stand categorically proved. The purpose of marking the

documents is to make it explicitly clear that the document is relied upon by

the department or on behalf of the delinquent. In this case, that is very clearly

put across, and the petitioner has given his explanation. The only finding is

that the explanation is completely untenable, and the order of punishment

has been passed. Therefore, the argument that the document number is not

given in respect of the sale deed is only hyper-technical. Trusteeship of an

endowment is an office to be discharged by persons of the highest integrity

and devotion towards the purpose. When the same is found lacking and the

very endowment is sought to be dismantled by selling the properties, the

charges are extremely serious in nature, and it does not require a great deal of

consideration, as the sale deed is in black and white to prove the charge of

alienation of the endowed property. The movie-like defence of the petitioner

cannot even be convincingly spoken by him, let alone being believed by

anybody else. Therefore, the Disciplinary and Revisional authorities have

rightly imposed and confirmed the punishment of removal from the hereditary

trusteeship.

____________

Page 18 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

2.6. The Writ Petition not only deserves to be dismissed, but the

petitioner also should not be involved in the administration of the endowment

in any manner whatsoever.

2.7. Accordingly, with the above observations, W.P.No.30377 of 2024

shall stand dismissed, with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to

the Arulmigu Koodalazhagar Temple, Madurai. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

C. Writ Petition (MD)No.11935 of 2026:-

3. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, D.Thirupathy, S/o

Dakshinamoorthy.

3.1. The prayer is for a Mandamus directing the 1

st

respondent, viz., the

Commissioner, to permit the petitioner, as the hereditary trustee representing

the Senior Muthusamy Pillai branch, to perform the mandagapadi and

annadhanam at the Nachiyarammal Trust Mandapam, Vandiyoor, Madurai

District, during the deity Lord Sri Kallazhagar's ceremonial visit as part of the

Chithirai festival on 01.05.2026 and 02.05.2026.

____________

Page 19 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

3.2. It must be noted that an interim order was passed with reference to

the said festival, and these matters could not be decided for want of time. In

view of the fact that the festival is now over, nothing remains to be decided in

this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

D. Writ Petition (MD)Nos.14357 of 2025, 10020, 12986, 7729 and 9976 of

2026:-

4. These Writ Petitions challenge the notification dated 06.05.2025

issued by the Joint Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and

Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai. By the said notification, an

advertisement was issued for the appointment of trustees in respect of the

endowment. The notification states that applications are invited for the

appointment of three hereditary trustees from the three clans, viz., the Senior

Muthusamy Pillai branch, the Junior Muthusamy Pillai branch, and the

Sundararaja Pillai branch, and two non-hereditary trustees. The candidates

are requested to apply in accordance with the procedure mentioned therein.

4.1. W.P.(MD)No.9976 of 2026 is filed by D.Thirupathy, S/o

Dakshinamoorthy, D.Tamil Ganesan, S/o Dakshinamoorthy, D.Sivakumar,

____________

Page 20 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

S/o Dakshinamoorthy and D. Muthuselvam, S/o Dakshinamoorthy. Of the

four, even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is admitted

that earlier the 2

nd

petitioner - D. Tamil Ganesan, S/o Dakshinamoorthy, had

challenged the notification by way of W.P.No.17445 of 2025 and has

withdrawn the same.

4.2. It is evident from the said order dated 19.08.2025 that no liberty

has been granted to him to file the second Writ Petition on the same cause of

action. Accordingly, W.P.(MD)No. 9976 of 2026 shall stand dismissed in limine

in respect of the 2

nd

petitioner.

4.3. The claim of the other petitioners, viz., 1

st

, 3

rd

and 4

th,

is that they

are entitled to be recognized as hereditary trustees, next in line of succession,

on the demise of their father, Dakshinamoorthy, in respect of the Senior

Muthusamy Pillai branch. It is their case that their grandfather, viz.,

M.P.Anandan Pillai, was the hereditary trustee representing the Senior

Muthusamy Pillai branch, and when Anandan Pillai died, Dakshinamoorthy,

being next in line of succession, succeeded him. Thereafter, the 2

nd

petitioner –

Tamil Ganesan – filed an application under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (in short 'the Act') to

recognize him as the hereditary trustee, next in line of succession,

____________

Page 21 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

representing the Senior Muthusamy Pillai branch, and the petitioners 1, 3 and

4 have consented to the recognition of the 2

nd

petitioner as the hereditary

trustee, next in line of succession, representing the Senior Muthusamy Pillai

branch.

4.4. Thus, it is clear that petitioners 1, 3 and 4 do not claim to appoint

themselves as the hereditary trustee. Only the 2

nd

petitioner, Tamil Ganesan,

has made a claim, and it is pending. Therefore, except to observe that the 2

nd

petitioner's claim will also be considered by the 2

nd

respondent, viz., the Joint

Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment

Department, Madurai, in the manner known to law as hereinafter contained in

the detailed directions issued in respect of the other writ petitions with similar

prayers, the prayer made in the Writ Petition cannot be countenanced.

Accordingly, W.P.(MD)No.9976 of 2026 shall stand dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

4.5. R. Vijayakumar, S/o. Ramalingam and Pichaiammal @

Kamatchiammal, has filed W.P.(MD)No.14357 of 2025. It is his case that after

the suspension of M. Thiruppathi, who was representing the Junior

Muthusamy Pillai branch, his mother, Pichaiammal @ Kamatchiammal, was

____________

Page 22 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

recognised as the hereditary trustee representing the Junior Muthusamy Pillai

branch. In 2019, he filed M.P. No. 209 of 2019 seeking removal of his mother,

Pichaiammal @ Kamatchiammal, and appointment of himself in her place. It is

his further case that, when Pichaiammal @ Kamatchiammal was appointed,

directions were issued to take all necessary steps to retrieve the lands within

three months and report the same to the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner.

Since no action was taken by her, the application filed by the petitioner was

allowed in part by an order dated 27.03.2025, removing the petitioner's

mother. However, instead of appointing the petitioner herein, a fit person was

appointed. The petitioner has already challenged the appointment of the fit

person in W.P.(MD)No.13433 of 2025, which will be dealt with later in this

order.

4.6. Therefore, when the petitioner is simply required to be recognized

as a hereditary trustee, inviting applications for determining every line of

succession by the impugned notification is illegal. In any event, the impugned

notification must be confined only to non-hereditary trustees.

4.7. W.P.(MD)No.10020 of 2026 is filed by S.Gopalakrishnan. He claims

that his late father, Sethuraman, was the hereditary trustee representing the

Junior Muthusamy Pillai branch, pursuant to the order dated 14.02.1974.

Thereafter, his uncle, viz., M.Thiruppathi, was recognised, and he has now

____________

Page 23 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

been removed from the office of hereditary trustee. Therefore, he has the right

to be recognized as a hereditary trustee, and thus, without recognising him as

the hereditary trustee, calling for a fresh application is illegal.

4.8. W.P.(MD)No.12986 of 2026 is filed by one Murugan, S/o

Dakshinamoorthy. It is also his case that after the death of his grandfather,

Anandam Pillai, his father, Dakshinamoorthy, succeeded to the trusteeship

and administered the trust. It is further seen that the said Dakshinamoorthy

married one Vellachi, and out of the said wedlock, three children, namely,

Anandhi, Dhavamani, and the petitioner herein, Murugan, were born. It is the

further case of the petitioner that one Baby, who is not the legally wedded wife

of the said Dakshinamoorthy, gave birth to Tamil Ganesan, Thirupathi,

Sivakumar, and Muthuselvam through the said Dakshinamoorthy.

4.9. During that period, the said Dakshinamoorthy, along with the said

Baby, was involved in selling the trust properties to one Ramesh. It is the

further case of the petitioner that after the death of his father –

Dakshinamoorthy, Tamil Ganesan obtained patta. Therefore, the petitioner –

Murugan filed O.S. No. 189 of 2022 to declare himself the legal heir of

Dakshinamoorthy. He also sent several representations seeking recognition as

the hereditary trustee for the Senior Muthusamy Pillai branch. However, the

____________

Page 24 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

aforementioned Baby was wrongly appointed as trustee by an order dated

19.01.2021. She was not even a descendant of Senior Muthusamy Pillai, and,

by abuse of power, the then Joint Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu

Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Madurai, appointed her as

a trustee. However, the said Baby died on 29.04.2021. Even though the

petitioner had challenged her appointment in W.P. (MD) No. 9449 of 2021, in

view of the death of the Baby, the Writ Petition was closed, directing the 2

nd

respondent therein to fill up the vacancy as per Section 54 of the Act.

4.10. Even thereafter, several applications were sent by the said

Murugan. Without considering the applications, the impugned notification was

issued, inviting applications and hence the present Writ Petition.

4.11. W.P. (MD) No. 7729 of 2026 is filed by R.Meenakshisundaram,

who describes himself as representing the trustee of Nacharammal kattalai.

4.12. It is his case that his mother, representing the Junior Muthusamy

Pillai branch, was recognized as the hereditary trustee. When she was about

90 years old and could no longer effectively administer the trust, an order

dated 27.03.2025 removed her and appointed a fit person. Upon his mother's

removal, being the person next in line of succession, he should have been

____________

Page 25 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

recognized as the hereditary trustee. Under these circumstances, he was

shocked to learn that the impugned notification was issued. Challenging the

same, the Writ Petition is filed.

4.13. Upon consideration of the prayer and the rival claims, it is seen

that, as on date, the endowment has to be administered by three hereditary

trustees from the respective three clans and two non-hereditary trustees. It is

also seen that in 2010, two non-hereditary trustees were appointed, and after

their tenure ended, the posts remained vacant. The petitioner himself accepted

that there is nothing wrong with the impugned notification regarding the

appointment of non-hereditary trustees.

4.14. As far as hereditary trustees are concerned, it is true that the

office of the hereditary trustee devolves as per the rule of succession, and it is

not a case of appointment by the Joint Commissioner, but only a case of

recognition of the person who has succeeded to the office. Therefore, in

claiming succession to the office, all the petitioners have already filed

applications. Certain allegations have also been made that some of the

petitioners have mutated the patta pertaining to the endowment properties in

their individual names and that they are disqualified, including for

involvement in criminal cases.

____________

Page 26 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

4.15. It is a settled principle of law that an endowment created for

religious purposes, such as the one on hand, constitutes a religious institution

within the meaning of the Act. If the endowment is for purposes connected

with activities inside the temple, such as pooja, etc., the deity itself becomes

the owner of the land, and it will be administered by the trustees attached to

the temple. On the other hand, if the endowment is for a purpose, though

connected with the temple, relating to any pious obligations to be performed

outside the temple premises, as in the instant case, it has to be treated as a

religious institution of its own, and the persons representing are to act as

Dharmakarthas (Trustees) who can only administer the properties of the

endowment and spend the income, truly and properly accounting for the same

for the purposes mentioned therein. The conduct of mandagapadi and pooja

for the deity, Lord Shri Kallazhagar, during the Chithirai festival is one of the

most popular pious obligations in and around the Madurai District.

4.16. It is claimed by one of the petitioners that the properties endowed

as on date are of the value around Rs. 800 Crores. It is seen that the revenue

records in respect of several properties are in the individual names and not in

the name of the Nacharammal Kattalai. Therefore, the primary objective is

firstly to mutate the revenue records in favour of the Nacharammal Kattalai.

____________

Page 27 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

Secondly, if anybody is in an unauthorized occupation, they have to be evicted

in the manner known to law, and the properties have to be properly cultivated

by leasing out in the manner known to law, and the income has to be

generated and applied by the trustees representing the Kattalai for the

purposes mentioned therein. Merely because some of the lands are dry lands

and do not have irrigation facilities cannot be grounds to sell or otherwise

dispose of the property. Lands are now valuable, and the same is increasing

day by day. Cultivation is happening even in dry areas through bore wells,

drip irrigation, etc. Thus, the contention that cultivation is not possible is

rejected.

4.17. Though an order is normally passed under Section 54 merely

recognizing the hereditary trusteeship, here it is not a simple exercise. There

is also a dispute to be considered under Section 63 of the Act. For these

purposes, if the applications have already been made by the Writ Petitioners,

the same shall be considered by the 2

nd

respondent – the Joint Commissioner,

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,

Madurai, on their own merits. The list of properties of the endowment shall be

enumerated and listed by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.

Considering the extraordinary situation, every petitioner before this Court or

any other person claiming to be recognized as a hereditary trustee or applying

____________

Page 28 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

for non-hereditary trustee, in additional to complying with the regal

procedure, shall file a notarized affidavit, (i) acknowledging that the list of

properties as contained in the list prepared by the Assistant Commissioner

belong to the Nacharammal Kattalai and he has no objection in mutating the

revenue records; (ii) he is not in possession or cultivation of the said lands; (iii)

the lands can be leased by public auction for cultivation; (iv) and that he will

take all such steps in that direction and argument the income for

Nacharammal Kattalai; (iv) disclose whether he was arrayed as an accused in

any first information report; whether any final report was filed against him

before any court; whether he was convicted or acquitted in any criminal case;

whether any first information report or criminal case or appeal or further

proceedings are pending against him. Strict scrutiny should be made with

reference to the disqualifications as contained under Section 26 of the Act. If

any one of the petitioners has already dealt with or in any manner been

involved in the misappropriation of the endowed property, their applications

shall be rejected. Any other disqualifications should also be considered.

Thereafter, among the eligible persons, the next in line of succession must be

determined in accordance with the existing scheme.

4.18. Therefore, even though the petitioners have already made

applications for recognition, pursuant to the notification, they shall make a

____________

Page 29 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

representation enclosing their earlier application and the affidavit as stated

supra. The 2

nd

respondent can very well proceed to appoint the non-hereditary

trustees from among the applicants, provided they are qualified and persons of

integrity and devotion, capable of carrying out the purposes. If no qualified

candidate has applied, a fresh advertisement can again be issued. As far as

the hereditary trusteeship is concerned, pending applications of all the legal

heirs, including those of the Writ Petitioners herein, along with any

applications received pursuant to the impugned advertisement, shall be

considered by the 2

nd

respondent in accordance with law and the rule of

succession. After eliminating those involved in misappropriation of the

properties or any other disqualification, suitable persons next in line of

succession as per the scheme shall be appointed. The said process shall be

conducted in an open and transparent manner by conducting an enquiry,

fixing the dates of the enquiry, and permitting the petitioners to participate

therein. During the enquiry, the petitioners or any other person claiming such

office who has filed an affidavit shall be heard. All such applications earlier

made and now made pursuant to the impugned notification shall all be

considered together. All the petitioners are entitled to place before the 2

nd

respondent as to the eligibility or otherwise of themselves and the rival

contesting parties. A specific date shall be given by the 2

nd

respondent before

which all such documents have to be supplied. Such documents given by the

____________

Page 30 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

applicants shall be indexed date-wise and be marked and referred to in the

order appointing hereditary trustees, and every allegation made against every

applicant should be adverted to, and a reasoned order should be passed as to

how the said allegation is incorrect, correct or not a relevant consideration for

the appointment of hereditary trustees. By order of speaking, hereditary

trustees from the three clans shall be appointed, as per rule of succession if fit

candidates are available. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a website uploaded copy of

this order.

4.19. In the meanwhile, the 2

nd

respondent shall pursue with the

revenue and other authorities to update/mutate the revenue records in

respect of all the properties which belong to the Nacharammal Kattalai. Once

the hereditary and non-hereditary trustees assume office, the earliest person

appointed to office shall, within four weeks of assuming office, bring to the

notice of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner the properties which are

encroached upon and possessed by any third parties or any family members.

The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner shall file an application under

Sections 78 and 79 of the Act before the appropriate authorities, and all the

unauthorized encroachers shall be evicted. Steps shall be taken to lease out

the properties in an open and transparent manner, in accordance with the

rules, and to augment income for the Kattalai.

____________

Page 31 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

4.20. Simultaneously, if any tenant is in arrears of rent, the arrears

shall be recovered, and steps shall be taken to evict the defaulting tenants. It

will also be open to the authorities to regularize any person who is otherwise

in possession as a tenant, provided the party agrees that he is the tenant

under the Kattalai and agrees to pay the rent that may be fixed by the

authorities. The list of properties shall be meticulously compiled and

maintained in a digital format. The movables, including the bank account,

shall be duly administered by the duly appointed trustees and shall be

periodically supervised and checked by the Joint Commissioner.

4.21. With the above observations and directions, these Writ Petitions

are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall be closed.

E. Writ Petition (MD) Nos.13433, 13979 and 14043 of 2025:

5. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2025,

in as much as it appoints a fit person after removing the existing trustee -

Pichaiammal @ Kamatchiammal with a consequential prayer to record the

name of the respective petitioners as the trustees.

____________

Page 32 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

5.1. In this regard, it can be seen that, as against the order dated

27.03.2025, there is an effective alternate remedy of filing a revision before the

1

st

respondent is available and already a revision petition in RP No.56 of 2025

is pending. It is also stated that some of the petitioners are already parties in

the said revision. Any of the Writ petitioners who have not been made a party

in the said RP No.56 of 2025 can also file an application to implead them as a

party in the said revision petition.

5.2. It is already stated that an order of interim stay has been granted,

and this Court, under extraordinary circumstances, permitted certain duties

with reference to the conduct of mandagapadi for this year alone. That will not

in any manner influence the commissioner before whom the revision is

pending. Thus, after hearing all the concerns, the Revision Petition No. 56 of

2025 will be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Further, once the

decision regarding the appointment of the non-hereditary and hereditary

trustees is complete, that would bring about a solution and would redress the

grievance of the Writ Petitioners.

5.3. With the above said observations and directions, these Writ

Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________

Page 33 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

F. Contempt Petition (MD) No.1031 of 2026:

6. This Contempt Petition is filed complaining of willful disobedience of

the order dated 07.01.2026 in W.P.(MD)No.277 of 2026.

6.1. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the 3

rd

respondent

therein, viz., the Assistant Commissioner, who was also appointed as the fit

person, was directed not to interfere with the affairs of the trust, and the 1

st

respondent therein was directed to dispose of the revision petition within a

period of three months, the interview with reference to the notification was not

proceeded with, and the revision was also not disposed of within the time fixed

by this Court, hence the Contempt Petition.

6.2. It can be seen that the situation arose in view of the factual matrix

contained in the claims and counter-claims made and dealt with supra by the

various orders in the Writ Petitions. Accordingly, the respondents’ action

cannot be said to be willful disobedience. Now, this Court has directed

expeditious disposal of the revision and that all the cases of the family

members be considered. The grievance that none of the family members were

called for interview can no longer hold good, in view of the directions made

supra. No further action need be taken in the Contempt Petition. If any of the

above directions, which are now issued, are not complied with, it will be open

____________

Page 34 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

for any one of the petitioners to approach this Court by way of an appropriate

Contempt Petition.

6.3. With the above observations, this Contempt Petition shall stand

disposed of.

01.06.2026

Jer / smn2

Neutral citation : Yes

To

1. The Joint Commissioner

HR & CE Department

Madurai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer

Arulmigu Koodal Azhagar Thirukoil

Madurai.

3. The Inspector, Madurai North

HR & CE Department, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.

____________

Page 35 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 etc. batch

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

Jer / smn2

Pre-Delivery Common Order made in

Cont.P.(MD)No.1031 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)Nos.30377 of 2024, 13433,

13979, 14043, 14357 of 2025, 7729, 9976, 10020, 11935 & 12986 of

2026

and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.25547 of 2024, 9666, 9670, 10132, 10133, 10134,

10175, 10176, 10543, 10544 of 2025, 6303, 6306, 6854, 7848, 7849,

7850, 7872, 7874, 9733 & 9736 of 2026

01.06.2026

____________

Page 36 of 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis