WP CRL.(MD)/5150/2026 of Keelapavoor Nadar Amman Kovil Vs The Superintendent of Police on 25 September 2026

O R D E R

The relief sought for in this writ petition is to give police protection for the peaceful conduct of Kodai festival of Arulmigu Muppidathi Amman temple, situated at Keelapavoor Village, Aalangulam Taluk, Tenkasi District, from 28.9.2026 to 30.9.2026, based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.8.2026. 2 (a). The bare facts just and necessary to dispose this case is as that Keelapavoor Nadar Amman Temple (subject temple) belongs to the 14 Hindu Nadar Families of Keelapavoor Village. It has five other temples and all the temples collectively called as Keelapavoor Nadar Amman temple. The temples have been administered by the hereditary trustees. There are three hereditary trustees, viz., Amutha Thamizh Pandian / petitioner, S.A.S.Ramesh and J.Murugan. The temple has more than 150

years of history. The temple was originally founded and maintained by the families of Periyaram Nadar and Kuthalinga Nadar. Their family vested with the hereditary trustees to administer the temple. Traditionally, the said Periyaram Nadar family has been entrusted with the management of the finances and properties of the temple, whereas the said Kuthalinga Nadar family has been entrusted with the maintenance and supervision of the temple accounts.

(b) . In the course of time, twelve other Nadar families were permitted to join the original two families for the purpose of worshipping, participating in the religious observances and preserving the heritage of the temples. Thereby, 14 Hindu Nadar families have right over the temple. There is a customary practice known as "Thalaikatu Vari", under which every married male member belonging to the said 14 families contributes the prescribed customary amount towards the temple. Such contribution is historically associated with the right to participate in and worship at the temple. There are approximately 1166 Thalaikatu Vari for the temple maintenance etc. The right is vested with the hereditary trusteeship as per the Court decree in O.S. No.265 of 1983 and followed that A.S.No.57 of 1990 and A.S.No.107 of 1990. Having no further appeal, thus, the relief of declaration and injunction become final.

(c) . In the given circumstances, one Mahalinga Nadar group instituted a suit in O.S. No.3 of 1988 seeking permission to conduct separate Kodai festival among the 14 families and the same was dismissed. Against which, the said Mahalinga Nadar group filed an appeal in A.S.No. 188 of 1997 and the appeal suit was also dismissed by confirming the decree of the suit and no further appeal, thereby, the said order is final. Based on the civil Court decrees, the only 14 Nadar families have right to administer the temple. There was some incident in 2024, for forcible breaking open the temple premises and valuable temple jewels and ornaments were stolen. Therefore, the petitioner lodged a complaint. But, no action taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ Petition in W.P. (MD)No.29413 of 2025. In that case also, the administration of the trustees were upheld, thereby, the hereditary trustees are entitled to conduct the Kodai festival. The petitioner and other trustees decided to conduct the festival by executing Nonbu on 22.09.2026 and main function be started on 28.09.2026 and ended in 30.09.2026. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 19.08.2026 for seeking police protection. Having not considered, this writ petition has been filed.

3. Originally, the respondents 1 and 2 are the parties to the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), and considering that there were rival claims with regard to the conduct of the temple festival, this Court, suo motu, impleaded the third respondent and directed him to convene a peace committee meeting and submit a report.

4. Pursuant to the said direction, the third respondent convened and conducted a peace committee meeting and concluded in report dated 18.09.2026 that neither the petitioner nor the rival parties conceded to conduct the Kodai festivsl amicably. Therefore, the third respondent submitted a report stating that there is no possibility of permitting the petitioner to conduct the festival peacefully, in view of the prevailing dispute between the parties Thereafter, the private respondents 4 to 6 impleaded as per the order passed in W.M.P.Crl.(MD)No.1214 of 2026, by an order dated 23.09.2026, by another W.M.P.Crl.(MD)No.1215 of 2026, the seventh respondent has been impleaded by an order dated 23.09.2026, and also another W.M.P.CRl.(MD)No.1216 of 2026, by an order dated 23.09.2026, the eighth respondent has been impleaded. After impleading rival parties as the respondents 4 to 8, this Court heard them also at length.

5. During the course of the submission raised on 25.09.2026, the some of the private respondents agreed that the petitioner is the hereditary trustee along with S.A.S.Ramesh and J.Murugan. The said J. Murugan filed a petition W.M.P.Crl.(MD)No.1215 of 2026 to implead him as one of the respondents and the same was allowed and he was impleaded as seventh respondent in the main writ petition. Except the seventh respondents, the other private respondents are not coming under any other three Vagaiyaras of the Nadar community. Even then they contended that they should be added as administrator and to conduct the temple festival along with the three Vagaiyaras representative mentioned therein.

6. This Court, with a view to enabling the petitioner and the private respondents to conduct the Kodai festival amicably, directed them to work out their disputes before the competent civil forum in the manner known to law. However, they did not arrive at any amicable settlement. Thereafter, the third respondent conducted a peace committee meeting. Even in the said meeting, neither the private respondents nor the petitioner agreed to conduct the festival amicably. In view of the above circumstances, and as no possibility of an amicable resolution could be arrived at, the third respondent submitted his report. Therefore, this matter is disposed of on merits.

7. The same situation arose in the year 2012, in which, the Keelapavoor Hindu Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam, represented by its Secretary M. Dharmaraj, filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P(MD) No. 12437 and 12511 of 2012, in which, the interim orders were passed on 25.09.2012, nominating the three representatives each from Group A and Group B and permitted them to conduct Kodai festival after that year only. In that order, paragraph No.9, it was recorded that it is not in dispute that there is no scheme has been framed. Except pursuant to the decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, in O.S. No.265 of 1988 and despite the said decree of the Civil Court, the festival could not be conducted for several years for one reason or another reasons. Since the parties expressed their willingness to arrive at a compromise for conducting the festival, a consent order was passed as an interim order, permitting the parties to proceed with the conduct of the festival.

8. It is further revealed from the order dated 04.10.2012, disposing of both the writ petitions, that, pursuant to the interim consent order, the festival was conducted without any untoward incident and that the parties were making efforts to resolve the dispute through mediation and conciliation among the members of the community. The said submission was recorded, and the writ petitions were disposed of with an observation that, if the parties arrived at a compromise, they were at liberty to act in terms thereof; otherwise, liberty was granted to the petitioner to work out the remedy in terms of paragraph No. 9 of the interim order dated 25.09.2012.

9. After hearing both sides, even thereafter, no consensus could be reached between the parties for conducting the temple festival for the year 2026. It is also not in dispute that, so far, no suit has been instituted by either party. While the rival private respondents claim rights over the subject temple, the petitioner also asserts his right over the temple and claims administrative control thereof. In such circumstances, the rival claims regarding the right of administration and management of the temple cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. The said issue necessarily requires adjudication by a competent civil Court in appropriate proceedings, including a suit for declaration, as may be warranted.

10. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed, as no consensus could be arrived at between the petitioner and the private respondents with regard to the conduct of the temple festival for this year, 2026. It is open to either the petitioner or the private respondents to work out their remedy in the manner known to law by approaching the competent forum and agitating their respective rights with regard to the administration and management of the subject temple, by instituting a declaratory suit or scheme suit or such other appropriate proceedings as may be available to them in law.

11. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to both the petitioner and the private respondents to work out their respective remedies in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum. Internet:Yes 07.10.2026 Index:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No LS

To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi, Tenkasi District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Pavoorchathiram Police Station, Tenkasi District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P. MURUGAN, J. LS Pre-delivery Order made in W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 5150 of 2026 07.10.2026