N.Valli vs P.Seethalakshmi
- Court
- Madras High Court
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 30.09.2026
Pronounced On 27.10.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
REV.APLC(MD) No.92 of 2026
1.N.Valli ... Appellant
Vs.
1.P.Seethalakshmi
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Chennai – 600 020.
3.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department,
Madurai – 625 016.
4.The Deputy Commissioner/
Executive Officer,
A/m. Pandimuneeswarar Temple,
Melamadai, Madurai.
5.R.Lakhsmi,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
6.Ponnupandian
7.P.Jai Veerapandi
8.R.Rajesh Pandi
9.Rishi Pandi
10.Maruthupandi
11.P.Manikandan Poojari
12.K.Ponnan Poojari
13.R.Rebello Poojari
14.P.Sivaji Poosari
15.S.Karthick Poosari
16.V.K.Panidan
17.P.Veeramalai
18.T.Sankar
19.R.Anusankari
20.R.Priya
21.P.M.Chellapandi Poosari
22.P.M.Pandiyarajan Poosari
23.P.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
24.R.Saravanan Pandian
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
25.V.Aarthi
26.P.Malathi ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Review Application has been filed under Order – 47, Rule 1 and 2
r/w section-114 of C.P.C., to review the order passed by this Court in W.A.
(MD)No.25 of 2025, dated 02.04.2026.
For Appellants : Msss.J.Ananthavalli
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Udhayakumar
Government Advocate for R2 to R4
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, namely,
Miss.J.Anandavalli. He would submit that the issue discussed by this Court in
paragraph 19 travels beyond the scope of jurisdiction in the present proceedings
and is also contrary to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. It is further submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge
was not challenged by the review petitioner and that she had no opportunity to
place her submissions on the said issue before this Court during the hearing of
the writ appeal.
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
3. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, paragraph No.19 of the
order requires review and is liable to be set aside.
4.This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the review petitioner.
5. The larger issue that arose for consideration in the writ appeal was
whether Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959), read with the relevant Rules of 1964,
had any impact upon the hereditary rights, hereditary poosariship and hereditary
trusteeship claimed by the members of the respective families, as reflected in the
family trees appended to the impugned order.
6. After hearing all the parties and with their consent, this Court
considered the larger question as to whether the hereditary authorities were
entitled to contend that the cessation or superannuation of the hereditary poosari
on attaining the age of 60 years was valid, and whether such persons continued
to be entitled to claim hereditary poosariship notwithstanding Section 55(2) of
Act 22 of 1959.
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
7. It is pertinent to note that, at the instance of Miss.J.Ananthavalli, who
was the counsel for the appellant in W.A.(MD).No.25 of 2025, all the necessary
parties were impleaded and heard by this Court. A specific question was also
framed in paragraph 7 of the order for consideration, which reads as follows:
“ 7.Since the issue was related to the applicability of the Section 55(2) of
Act, 22 of 1959 and the Rule 1964, the appellant in W.A. (MD).No.25 of
2025 impleaded all the persons who have the right of poosariships as
well as hereditary trusteeship and this Court allowed the impleading
petition and heard the matter in length requesting all the counsel to
address whether the order passed by the department that hereditary
trusteeship and the hereditary poosariship cannot he availed by the
above temple is correct or not? ”
8. Thus, after framing the aforesaid question and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to all the parties, this Court proceeded to consider and
decide the issues arising for determination and dealt with the respective aspects
separately.
9. The contention that the order of the learned Single Judge was not
challenged in a writ appeal does not, in the circumstances of the present case,
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
advance the case of the review petitioner. The issue considered by this Court
was not confined merely to the limited question of the correctness of the order of
the learned Single Judge, but concerned with the larger question arising for
consideration in the writ appeal, which had been specifically framed after
hearing the parties.
10.Therefore, this Court finds that the issue dealt with in paragraph 19
was neither beyond the scope of the proceedings nor considered without
affording an opportunity to the parties. The said issue was considered in the
context of the larger question framed by this Court and after hearing all
concerned.
11.At the cost of repetition, for the sake of clarity, this Court considers it
appropriate to revisit the finding recorded in paragraph 19(1) of the impugned
order. Valli is the wife of Sangam Poosari. After the demise of Sangam Poosari,
Valli had give consent letter to appoint Karthik as sucessor and subsequently
addressed a letter seeking cancellation of the earlier arrangement under which
Karthik, who was claimed to be the adopted son of Sangam Poosari, was
authorised to act on her behalf and to claim herself as herself heretiary
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
poosariship to receive hundle collection. Similar belated claim raised in another
branch namely Pandiammal, representing the branch of Shivaji Poosari, seeking
the appointment of a person from her branch had already been rejected by the
Division Bench of this Court, and the said decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The same was taken into account by this court. Further, the
claim advanced by Valli was also rejected by the Department. Karthik, who was
associated with the said arrangement, was subsequently suspended on
allegations of misconduct and misappropriation.
12.The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, Miss.J.
Ananthavalli, has placed reliance on observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, made therein were interlocutory in nature where the then Hon’ble Chief
Justice, Mr.Justice D.Krishna Kumar had appointed to mediate and not finally
concilated by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr.Justice D.Krishna Kumar, and
finality was ultimately attained in the writ petitions by the common order
impugned in the writ appeals.
13.In the light of these circumstances,The findings recorded in paragraph
No.19(1) were thus made after considering the factual circumstances and the
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
rival claims pertaining to the respective branches, keeping in view the interests
of the temple and an entitlement to hereditary rights in disregard of the
applicable statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements governing the
matter. This Court finds no inconsistency between the findings so recorded and
the judicial pronouncements relied upon, warranting interference in the review
proceedings. This Court, therefore, finds no error apparent on the face to the
record or any other sufficient ground warranting review of the order passed by
this Court.
14.Apart from that the Impugned Order were challenged before the
Honourable Supreme Apex Court and the Apex Court passed the following
Order in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No (s). 15544-15546/2026.
3.There shall be an order of status quo and we make it
explicitly clear that the Hundis that are placed inside the temple or
within petitioners. However, in the presence of the petitioners and
the premises of the temple, shall not be opened by any of the
respondents' officials, the nominated officials of the Indian Bank
shall open the Hundis. if necessary, and deposit the amounts found
in the Hundi to the account of the temple at Indian Bank, which
shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by any person.
4. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent/State submits, on instructions, that the directions
issued in paragraph 24 (iii) of the impugned order has already
been complied with. His submission is placed on record.
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
5. Counter affidavit, if any, shall be filed within six weeks
and rejoinder affidavit, within three weeks thereafter.
6. List after nine weeks.
7. In view of the above directions, proceedings pursuant to
notice dated 24.04.2026 issued by the Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department filed in IA
No.141874/2026 as Annexure A-6 stands stayed.
16. In view of the above pendency of the appeal before the Honourable
Supreme Court, we refrain from rendering finding on the issue raised in the
review petition.
17.Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the contention advanced by
the learned counsel for the review petitioner and finds no error apparent on the
face of the record warranting a review of the finding recorded in paragraph
19(1). The Review Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
27.10.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
aas
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.,
aas/sbn
REV.APLC.(MD).No.92 of 2026
27.10.2026
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 09:37:01 pm )