A fit person may administer the endowment pending determination of competing hereditary trusteeship claims.

The petitioners challenged two orders dated 13 April 2026 made by the Commissioner in R.P.No.561 of 2025: one allowing D. Murugan to be impleaded as a respondent, and the other not extending an interim stay against the appointment of a Fit Person to the Nachiarammal Trust

The revision arose from the Joint Commissioner’s appointment of a Fit Person under Section 53(4) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (“HR&CE Act”)

Murugan claimed hereditary trusteeship as a son of the petitioners’ late father, Dakshinamoorthy; the petitioners disputed his claim, and the parties’ respective succession claims were contested in other proceedings

The Trust was governed by a Modified Scheme, but the scheme was not produced before the Court

1. Whether the Commissioner was justified in impleading Murugan in the petitioners’ pending revision, given his claim to hereditary trusteeship and the dispute over his relationship to Dakshinamoorthy

2. Whether the Commissioner’s decision not to extend the interim stay against the Fit Person’s appointment warranted interference under Article 226

Section 21 of the HR&CE Act provides for revision of orders under the Act; Section 54(1) concerns recognition of succession to a hereditary trusteeship; and Section 53(4) was the provision invoked for appointing the Fit Person

The Court stated that succession to the hereditary office must be determined in accordance with the Trust’s Modified Scheme read with the HR&CE Act

In allowing impleadment, the Commissioner had relied on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, AIR 2012 SC 1727, for the principle that adjudication should seek to ascertain the truth

Murugan’s claim to be a descendant entitled to hereditary trusteeship was directly relevant to the pending revision, which concerned the Fit Person’s appointment. His impleadment therefore would not, by itself, prejudice the petitioners, while allowing his participation would permit the revision to consider the competing claims

The Court did not determine whether Murugan or the petitioners were Dakshinamoorthy’s heirs or entitled to trusteeship: the pending suit, disputed evidence, and absence of the Modified Scheme left those questions to be determined in the appropriate proceedings

It found no impediment to the Fit Person assuming charge pending the revision

It directed the Commissioner to dispose of R.P.No.561 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months of receiving a copy of the order