WP(MD)/28808/2026 of Ganapathy Subramaniyan R Vs The Commissioner, Hindu Reli on 6 October 2026

O R D E R

The first petitioner and his late brother Deivanayagam filed a petition before the second respondent under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, in O.A.No.7/2011/E1 for a declaration that Arulmighu Somasundara Vinayagar Temple, Sattur Town and Taluk, Virudhunagar District, is governed by Hereditary Trusteeship and for a declaration that the petitioners are Hereditary Trustees of the said temple. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 21.11.2019. The petitioners lodged an appeal before the Commissioner. The said appeal was rejected under the impugned order dated 02.02.2026.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of two documents, namely, Dharma Paripalana Pathiram dated 03.12.1892 and the Property Register under Section 38 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Hence, he submits that the appellate order is liable _____________

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.28808 of 2026 to be set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

3. Responding to these contentions, Mr.P.Mahendran, learned counsel, who accepts notice for the third respondent, submits that both the original authority and the appellate authority considered all documents submitted by the parties and entered factual findings upon appreciation of evidence. Placing reliance on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appellate order, both the learned counsel for the third respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents submit that interference under Article 226 is not warranted. After pointing out that a further challenge under Section 70 of the Act before a civil court is permissible, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in T.Lakshmikumara Thathachariar vs. The Commissioner and 4 others, 1997 (I) CTC 744.

4. On perusal of the original order dated 21.11.2019, it is clear that Dharma Paripalana Pathiram dated 03.12.1892 was duly considered and the petitioner's contentions by relying on the said document were rejected. Likewise, at paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned appellate order, it is _____________

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.28808 of 2026 noticeable that findings were entered upon appreciation of evidence, including by taking note of the Will executed by Sivasubramaniam Pillai, which is titled as Dharma Paripalana Pathiram dated 03.12.1892. In particular, a finding was entered that the original of the Will was not produced. The original authority noticed that the said document was unregistered. In paragraph 7 of the impugned appellate order, a factual finding was entered by the appellate authority that the succession of ancestors was not established with documentary evidence by the appellants. In judicial review, this Court does not sit in appeal over the challenged decision and merely reviews the decision-making process. On such review, I do not find any infirmity in the decision-making process warranting interference under Article 226. As submitted on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has an alternative remedy.

5. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. 06.10.2026 JEN NCC : No Index : No _____________

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.28808 of 2026 To

1. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

2. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District. _____________

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.28808 of 2026 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. JEN W.P.(MD) No.28808 of 2026 06.10.2026 (2/2) _____________

( Uploaded on: 12/10/2026 09:06:33 pm )