Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to the correct name of a deity in a temple under the administrative control of the HR & CE Department. One group of worshippers claimed that the deity was customarily worshipped as Veereshwarar, while another group asserted the name was Veerapathiraswamy. The Assistant Commissioner of the HR & CE Department ordered that the deity be worshipped as Veerapathiraswamy @ Veereshwararswamy. On appeal, the Joint Commissioner conducted an enquiry, set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order, and held that the deity's name is Veereshwarar. Aggrieved by the Joint Commissioner's order, some worshippers filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. A single judge, by order dated 09.09.2024, directed that the temple be called Veereshwararswamy alias Veerapathiraswamy, effectively expressing an opinion on the disputed name. The appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition, challenged this order by filing an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench noted that the dispute over the deity's name involved questions of fact and customary practices which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. The court held that such matters must be adjudicated by a civil court after considering documentary and oral evidence. It further observed that when a writ court relegates parties to the civil court, it must refrain from making any observations on the merits of the controversy, as such remarks could influence the civil court's independent decision. The single judge's direction to name the deity was therefore set aside as it was not in consonance with these principles. The court also noted that an earlier civil suit filed by the appellants had been dismissed for non-prosecution, but that did not bar a fresh suit on merits. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition order was quashed, and the parties were relegated to approach the civil court for resolution of the dispute, with a direction that the civil court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the writ court or the Division Bench. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – Disputes on Temple Deity Name – Constitution of India, Article 226 – The writ court cannot adjudicate disputes regarding naming of a temple deity which require examination of evidence and customary practices – Such disputed questions of fact must be decided by a civil court – Held that the writ court rightly relegated parties to civil court but erred in expressing opinion on the name (Paras 7-8).
B) Writ Court – Relegation to Civil Court – Prohibition on Observations on Merits – When a writ court relegates parties to a civil court, it should refrain from making any observations or findings on the merits of the dispute as such findings may prejudice the civil court's independent decision – Held that the direction to name the deity was prejudicial and set aside (Paras 7-9).
C) Civil Procedure – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – No Bar to Fresh Suit – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order IX – Dismissal of a suit for non-prosecution does not prevent adjudication on merits through a fresh suit – A worshipper can institute a new suit or move to reopen the earlier suit (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court could issue a direction regarding the name of the temple deity in a writ petition while relegating the parties to civil court; and whether such direction was sustainable.
Final Decision
The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the order of the single judge dated 09.09.2024 in W.P.No.3720 of 2023, and relegated the parties to approach the civil court to resolve the dispute regarding the name of the deity. The civil court was directed to decide the matter on merits uninfluenced by any observations made by the writ court or the Division Bench. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- disputed issues of fact relating to naming of deity are not amenable to writ jurisdiction
- writ court cannot conduct roving enquiry
- when relegating parties to civil court writ court must not express opinion on merits
- dismissal of suit for non-prosecution does not bar fresh suit
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 44
W.A.No.807 of 2025 and CMP No.6974 of 2025
S.M.Subramaniam, K.Rajasekar
Citation not available, 2025:MHC:881
For Appellants: Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan; For Respondents: Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For R1 & R2; Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader For R3 to R5
1.R.Moulisankar, 2.ONS Nanjappan, 3.V.Kandasamy, 4.R.Subash, 5.V.S.K.Palanisamy
1.S.Vasudevan, 2.V.Veerapathiran, 3.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR & CE), 4.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR & CE), 5.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR & CE), 6.M.Amirthalingam, 7.M.N.D.Rajalingam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over the name of the deity in a temple under the administrative control of the HR & CE Department.
Remedy Sought
The appellants, who were respondents in the writ petition, sought to set aside the order of the single judge dated 09.09.2024 which directed the temple to be called as Veereshwararswamy alias Veerapathiraswamy.
Filing Reason
The writ petition was filed challenging the orders of the Joint Commissioner who had set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and found the deity's name as Veereshwarar. The single judge, while rehearing, directed the name, which was contested. The appellants filed intra-court appeal because the single judge expressed opinion on the disputed name.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner ordered the deity to be workshipped as Veerapathiraswamy @ Veereshwararswamy. The Joint Commissioner in RP.No.2 of 2012 dated 19.01.2023 set aside that order and held the name as Veereshwarar. The single judge in W.P.No.3720 of 2023 directed the temple to be called as Veereshwararswamy alias Veerapathiraswamy.
Issues
Whether the writ court could adjudicate the dispute over the name of the temple deity in writ proceedings.
Whether the writ court's direction to name the deity while relegating parties to civil court was proper and not prejudicial.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the deity was customarily workshipped as Veereshwarar, and the order of Joint Commissioner in their favour was interfered with by the writ court's direction.
Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the deity was named as Veerapathiraswamy and referred to an earlier civil suit filed by appellants which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Division Bench observed that the dismissal of suit for non-prosecution would not bar fresh adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi
Disputes over naming a temple deity involving questions of fact and custom cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction; such matters must be resolved by civil court. A writ court, while relegating parties to civil court, must refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute to avoid prejudicing the civil court's independent adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
The controversy arouse to name the Deity in a temple falling under the administrative control of the HR & CE Department.
this Court is of the considered view that when the disputed issue of this nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings and it is to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court of law based on the documents and evidences and the customary practices which all are to be established, such an adjudication cannot be done by the writ Court.
the writ Court while relegating the parties to approach the civil Court, ought not to have expressed any opinion regarding the controversy relating to name of the deity in the temple.
the writ Court order issuing direction that the Temple to be called as Veereshwararswamy alias Veerapathiraswamy is not in consonance with the principles.
Procedural History
Assistant Commissioner passed order naming deity as Veerapathiraswamy @ Veereshwararswamy. Joint Commissioner in appeal set aside and found name as Veereshwarar. Respondents filed W.P.No.3720 of 2023 before single judge of Madras High Court. Single judge passed order dated 09.09.2024 directing temple to be called as Veereshwararswamy alias Veerapathiraswamy. Appellants (respondents in writ) filed intra-court appeal W.A.No.807 of 2025. Division Bench allowed appeal and set aside writ court order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959:
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX
