The Madras High Court has held that no person is entitled to claim the right of hereditary poosari of the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai, in view of the amendment to Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which abolished hereditary succession. The Court emphasised that Poosaris are temple servants and are strictly subject to the statutory age of superannuation of 60 years as prescribed under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1964.
The claims of hereditary trusteeship based on testamentary nomination (Will) are not legally maintainable under Section 2(17) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Accordingly, previous administrative orders granting a percentage of hundi collections as remuneration based on financial necessity cannot be treated as a perpetual entitlement when circumstances have significantly altered, and must be recalibrated to prevent unjust enrichment, added the Court.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan observed that none of the appellants were ever appointed as hereditary trustees under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959; they were merely permitted to perform poojas and receive a share of the collections as a temporary arrangement. Hence, the claim of the legal heirs of Mahamuni poosari based on a Will is not legally maintainable, as the 1959 Act does not recognize the right of nomination by a hereditary trustee after the commencement of the 1951 Act.
The Bench clarified that the temple is a notified public temple, and the provisions of Section 55 of the 1959 Act, which abolished hereditary succession to poosariship, are fully applicable. The constitutional validity of Section 55 was upheld by the Supreme Court in Seshammal vs. State of Tamilnadu. The appellants are treated as temple servants and are subject to the service conditions under the 1964 Rules, which fix the age of superannuation at 60 years.
The Bench noted that the temple’s financial position has drastically changed since 1980, with annual plate collections now exceeding Rs. 1 crore and hundi collections exceeding Rs. 4 crores. Continuing the 50% hundi share arrangement would lead to unjust enrichment, as the initial grant was a measure of necessity for livelihood, not a perpetual privilege. The authorities recorded findings of persistent mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, and numerous litigations among the rival claimants over the division of collections.
Briefly, the batch of writ appeals arises from a common judgment dismissing writ petitions that challenged orders of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department declining the appellants’ hereditary poosari rights at Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple, Madurai. The temple was originally administered by Valliammal, and subsequently by her sons, Bothal poosari and Mahamuni poosari, as hereditary trustees and poosaris. The legal heirs entered into compromises to perform poojas on a rotational basis and share the hundi and plate collections.
In 1980, the Deputy Commissioner fixed one-half of the hundi income as remuneration for the poosaris, as the temple’s income was meager at the time. Subsequently, the HR&CE Department initiated proceedings against the hereditary trustees for serious irregularities and mismanagement, leading to their suspension and the appointment of a fit person. The HR&CE Department passed various impugned orders relieving the appellants from poosariship, citing the abolition of hereditary poosariship under Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the superannuation age of 60 years under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Rules, 1964.
Appearances:
Advocate J. Anandhavalli, for the Appellant
Additional Advocate General R. Baskaran, Additional Government Pleader J. Ashok, for Respondent 1 & 2
M/s. J.R. Annie Abinaya, for Respondent 4 & 8
M/s. A.V. Arun and S.M. Arun Kumar, for Respondent 7
Bageerathan, for Respondent 9
Meenakshi Sundaram and M/s. D. Deepamathi, for Respondent 10 to 12
