Madras HC Rejects Temple Poosari’s Widow’s Review Of Hereditary Hundi Role, Noting Her Earlier Consent To Karthik

N. Valli sought review of the Division Bench’s order dated 2 April 2026 in W.A. (MD) No. 25 of 2025, particularly its finding in paragraph 19(1).

She argued that the finding exceeded the scope of the appeal and that she had not been given an opportunity to address the issue; she also contended that she had not challenged the Single Judge’s order in the appeal.

The Court recorded that all necessary parties had been impleaded and heard, and that a specific question concerning hereditary poosariship and trusteeship had been framed in the appeal.

The underlying dispute included Valli’s claim to hereditary poosariship and the arrangements made after the death of her husband, Sangam Poosari.

The impugned order was also before the Supreme Court, which made interim directions, including an order of status quo; the review Court noted the pending proceedings.

The review application was brought under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court assessed whether the challenged finding disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground warranting review.

Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the relevant 1964 Rules formed part of the underlying writ appeal’s broader dispute concerning hereditary poosariship and trusteeship; the review order did not determine their substantive application.

The Court rejected the claim that the finding was outside the appeal’s scope or made without a hearing.

It relied on the fact that all necessary parties had been impleaded, the broader question had been specifically framed, and the parties had been heard on it.

It also considered the circumstances underlying Valli’s claim and concluded that the paragraph 19(1) finding disclosed no apparent error or inconsistency warranting review.

Although the Supreme Court proceedings were pending, the Court stated that it would refrain from rendering a finding on the issue raised in the review petition.

It noted the pending Supreme Court proceedings and declined to render a finding on the issue raised in the review petition.