An agreed procession route is permitted ad hoc, leaving future customary rights undecided.

The petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer and General Power of Attorney of the 46th Jeer of Sri Ahobila Mutt, sought permission to conduct a procession through Arulmigu Nachiyar (Andal) Thirukovil, Srivilliputhur, on 15 October 2026, asserting an established custom connected with the Jeer’s Thirunakshathram.

The temple Executive Officer rejected the request, citing the petitioner’s failure to establish the custom and objections raised by the Tenkalai sect.

The petitioner relied on photographs said to show that the procession had previously passed through the Pandhal Mandabam.

The intervenor disputed the claimed custom, contending that the route had been used only in 2019 because road works obstructed the earlier route.

During the hearing, the parties agreed, without prejudice to their respective rights, to an alternative route for that year.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to conduct the procession on 15 October 2026, given the parties’ dispute over the asserted customary route.

Whether the existence of a customary right for subsequent years should be determined in proceedings under Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Section 63(e) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, was identified by the respondents as the provision under which the existence of a customary right should be established.

The Court did not decide the scope or application of that provision; it directed only that the parties may initiate appropriate proceedings under the HR&CE Act for subsequent years, leaving all contentions open.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner had established a customary right or which route had historically been used.

In view of the procession’s imminent date and the parties’ agreement to an alternative arrangement, it made an ad hoc order for 2026 without prejudice to their rival claims.

It left the dispute concerning subsequent years to appropriate proceedings under the HR&CE Act and preserved all contentions.

The procession was to commence at about 12.00 noon, enter the disputed area at 12.15 p.m., and exit before 12.30 p.m.

The arrangement applied only to that year; the parties could initiate appropriate proceedings for subsequent years, with all contentions left open.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.