R.SINGARAVELAN Tiruchendur Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Thrisvathanthirargal @ Sthalathar @ Mukkani Brahmins Through their Swanthira paripalana Sthalatharal Saba Head Kumar Iyer And One Another … Plaintiffs SENIOR COUNSEL FOR COUSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/

BEFORE THE LEARNED SUB-COURT-THIRUCHENDUR
O.S.No. 151 /2017

Tiruchendur Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Thrisvathanthirargal @ Sthalathar @ Mukkani Brahmins Through their Swanthira paripalana Sthalatharal Saba Head Kumar Iyer
And One Another … Plaintiffs
Vs.
The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Tiruchendur
And Others
… Defendants
ADDITIONAL WRITTEN BRIEF

I. Prelude – History of travelling of the present suit :-

In addition to the Written Brief already filed, the plaintiffs have chosen to file this Short Additional Written Brief as the matter was reopened by the Hon’ble present Presiding Officer as the former learned Sub Judge heard the matter and reserved for the judgment on 29.11.2024 was transferred to another Court.
Before his transfer he was pleased to post the matter for judgment on several dates i.e, 10.12.2024, 09.01.2025 and 23.01.2025. On 23.01.2025 he reopened the matter and sought for clarification in respect of Section 9 of he CPC and posted the matter to 30.01.2025.
On 30.01.2025, clarification was made by the parties and on hearing the same the learned Sub-Judge adjourned the matter for judgment on 21.02.2025 and again to 14.03.2025 and on 14.03.2025 for the adequate stamp on certain documents the case was posted to 17.03.2025 for compliance by the defendants for 4 documents and one for the plaintiffs.

On 17.03.2025, it was complied with and for the Hon’ble High Court order produced by the defendants dated 25.02.2025 in W.P.No.6704/2025 clarification was sought and the plaintiffs submitted that the said order is in respect of the ‘Caste’ and even in that order ‘ denomination’ is defined as follows by holding that caste can never be a denomination :-
“5. Thus, a careful reading of the judgment, it would be clear that ‘Caste’ by itself can never be a religious denomination. Only if they follow a particular philosophy or are guided by a guru or have a distinct way of carrying on their faith, etc. can any sect or sub sect be a ‘denomination’ … ”

It was submitted that the above order itself is in support of the contention of the plaintiffs and for getting the denominational status one need not have Guru and what is needed is particular philosophy or distinct way of carrying on their faith etc. So, submission was made that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs do not have Guru is liable to be rejected in view of the Apex Court Judgment of 7 Judges reported in AIR 1954 SC 282 at P 289 para 15 and also as per the above quoted order passed by our Hon’ble High Court.
Then the Court was pleased to adjourn the matter for judgment.
II. Documentary Evidence and the Discussion :- For the Denominational Status and the Schedule mentioned Rights:
The plaintiffs have marked 19 documents though they have mentioned and filed 29 documents along with the plaint as evidenced from PP 27and 28 of the plaint as mentioned below :-

29 Documents mentioned in the Plaint :-
1. Tirunelvelli Official Gazzette of the year 1916, published by Mamonmaniyam Sundaranar University
2. Srivaani Pooshanam’s Thiruchethur Sthalapuranam
3. Venrimalaigaviraayar’s Thiruchenthur Sthalapuranam Devasthanam
4. Adhi Sankarar’s Sri Subramaniya Pujangastathiram
5. Chidambara Muthaliyar Brother’s Subramaniya Parakkiramam
6. The Certificate of the Registration of the Plaintiffs 1924-1925.
7. Plantiff sabha’s Memorandum of Association
8. Plaintiff’s Registration Certificate dated 19.02.1996
9. Receipt dated 31.10.2009
10. Appointment order of the Vithayakartha issued by the proceedings of the Joint Commissioner dated 13.06.2008
11. Receipts 7 in Number issued by the temple showing the amount paid to the members of the plaintiffs
12. The letter related to the Share amount for the Abisheham.
13. The letter of the Joint Commissioner in Connection with Athyayana Murai Service of the plaintiffs dated 14.12.2009.
14. The Letter of the Joint commissioner in Connection with Athyayanam and Prohitham dated 11.06.2012
15. The Letter of the Joint commissioner in Connection with Athyayanam and Prohitham dated 01.03.2012
16. The Sambavanai (Service Charge) for the Archanai done by the plaintiffs for 3 Coloured Flag dated10.08.1986
17. Letter of the Commissioner for the share for Golden Charriot to the plaintiffs dated 28.11.2001
18. Letter of the Joint Commissioner for the share amount to the plaintiffs for Sandhana Lebanam dated 04.05.2005
19. Letter of the Joint Commissioner granting share amount for the Abisheham of the Karthikai Sri Jayanthinathar dated 21.09.1998
20. Letter of the Joint Commissioner granting share amount for the Abisheham of the Karthikai Sri Jayanthinathar dated 21.09.1998
21. Letter granting permission by the Commissioner to build padasala dated 05.11.1956
22. Letter of the Commissioner granting to give share amount to Slathargal dated 09.07.1959
23. Letter of the Commissioner granting to monetary assistance to the children of the poor slathargal dated 14.03.1959
24. Letter of the Joint Commissioner granting fund from Annathanam Fund dated 11.08.1977
25. Letter granting permission by the Commissioner to build Padasala dated 07.03.1957
26. 24 Certificate of Kuha Deesha Veda Padasala for doing pooja
27. The Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 23.02.2011
28. Order of the Joint Commissioner related to Thirumenikaval dated 12.11.2012
29. Order of the Joint Commissioner in O.P.No.5/2010 dated 24.08.2012

A. Documents marked and not allowed to be marked due to the objection of the defendants that they are Xerox copies though the originals are available with the defendants, and they have withheld those documents to defeat the case of the plaintiffs and hence Adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants:-

Among the above mentioned 29 documents S.No.7,8,9,21,22,23,24,27,28 and 29 at Page 27 and 28 of the plaint alone were allowed to be marked and the rest of the documents except S.No.3 and 5 marked as Court Documents as Ex.X6 and Ex.X2 other documents mentioned above in the plaint at pp 27 and 28 were not allowed to be marked on the ground that they are xerox copies, though they are the Public Documents issued by the Joint Commissioner and the receipts issued by the Temple which are available with the defendants. All are in their custody and it is they who should have produced the originals before this Hon’ble Court and the failure to do so would lead to drawal of adverse inference against them.

For the convenience of this Hon’ble Court the documents out of total 29 documents mentioned in the plaint at PP 27 and 28 of the Plaint allowed to be marked are given below with the exhibit number for the easy reference:-
S.No Serial No. Marked as Exhibits
1 S.No.3 Ex.X6
2 S.No.5 Ex.X2
3 S.No.7 Ex.A9
4 S.No.8 Ex.A10
5 S.No.9 Ex.A1
6 S.No.21 Ex.A2
7 S.No.22 Ex.A3
8 S.No.23 Ex.A4
9 S.No.24 Ex.A5
10 S.No.27 Ex.A7
11 S.No.28 Ex.A6
12 S.No.29 Ex.A8
.
Thus, out of 29 documents only 12 documents were allowed to be marked and the documents which got emanated from the office of the defendants and are available with them mentioned at S.No.1,2,4,6 and S.No.10 to 20 of the plaint were not allowed to be marked as they are xerox copies of the originals though the originals of the above documents are with the Defendants which would clearly in addition to the documents already marked would prove the exclusive service of the members of the plaintiff as mentioned in various schedules of the Plaint and their status. Those documents mentioned in the Plaint at Pages 27 and 28 of the Plaint but not allowed to be marked are given below ;-
B. Documents wantonly withheld by the Defendants and not allowed to be marked by the plaintiffs :- The Nature and evidentiary value of the documents on behalf of the plaintiffs and the documents not allowed to be marked by the plaintiffs though they are created by the defendants and are public documents available in their office are explained below:-

Document No.1 – Thirunelveli official Gazette of the year 1916 : Thought not permitted to be marked reproduced in the Full Bench Order dated 30.08.2022 marked as Ex.A19 :-

Document No.1 mentioned at P.27 of the plaint is the Tirunelvelli Official Gazette of the year 1916, published by Mamonmaniyam Sundaranar University, and the Official Gazette has more evidentiary value even as per the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a sensational case called Ram Janma Bhoomi Case otherwise called M.Siddiq (Ram Janma Bhoomi – 5-J) Vs. Suresh Das reported in (2020) 1 SCC P1.The same was accepted by the learned Predecessor Sub-Judge of this Hon’ble High Court and allowed the I.A.5/2024 and I.A.6/2024 filed by the plaintiffs to mark the old scriptures and the Books for the purpose of evidence as X1 to X10.
However, the above Gazette is quoted in the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of our High Court marked as Ex.A19 which would clearly prove the special status of the plaintiffs.
Document No.2:-
Thiruchendhur Stalapuranam also would prove the service and status of the plaintiffs. It is available in the office of the Temple.

Document No.4:-
Sri Subramaniya Pujangam written by Adhisanharachariar. By chanting this before Lord Thiruchendhur Muruga Adi Snkarar got his stomach pain and mental strain cured. It is being read by all Lord Muruga devotees even as on date.
Document No.6:-
The Certificate of the Registration of the Plaintiffs 1924-1925.However, the Copper plate marked as Ex.A12 of the year 1835 would prove the service of the plaintiff and it is in line with Documents No.12.
Document No.7:-
Joint Commissioner’s Order dated 13.06.2008 appointing Vidhayakartha. It must be available in the Temple office as it is their order and even as on date Vidhyakartha person is available and it is he who has to fix and follow the dates for various festivals of the Temple.
Document No.11:-
Receipts 7 in Number issued by the temple showing the amount paid to the members of the plaintiffs for the service rendered by them. They must also be available in the office of the temple as they were issued by them.
Document No.12:-
The Letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 26.12.2011 permitting the members of the plaintiffs to do Pooja in Sutrupura Parivara Moorthi Sannathihal. The original must be available in their office as it is their order.
Document No.13:-
Document No.13 dated 20.01.2012, The letter related to the Share amount for the Abisheham. The original must be available in the Temple office.
Document No.14:-
The Letter of the Joint Commissioner in Connection with Athyayana Murai Service of the plaintiffs dated 14.12.2009. The original must be available in the Temple office.
Document No.15:-
The Letter of the Joint commissioner in Connection with Athyayanam and Prohitham dated 11.06.2012. The original must be available in the office of the defendants.
Document No.16:-
The letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 01.03.2012, also is same to that of Document No.15 above mentioned. The original must be available with the defendants only.
Document No.17:-
The letter of the Commissioner dated 10.08.1986,related to the Sambavanai (Service Charge) for the Archanai done by the plaintiffs for 3 Coloured Flag. The original must be available in the office of the defendants only.
Document No.18:-
Letter of the Commissioner dated 28.11.2001 for the share for the service of Golden Chariot to the plaintiffs. The original must be available in the office of the defendants only.
Document No.19:-
Letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 04.05.2005, for the share amount to the plaintiffs for Sandhana Lebanam (Sandal Paste produced by crushing the original Sandal Wood). The original must be in the office of the defendants only.
Document No.20:-
Letter of the Joint Commissioner dated 21.09.1998 granting share amount for the Abisheham of the Karthikai Sri Jayanthinathar. The original must be available in the office of the defendants only.
Document No.25:-
The letter of the Commissioner dated 07.03.1957 which is same to that of Document No.21 dated 05.11.1956 (When 05.11.1956 was marked as Ex.A2, Document No.25 was not permitted to be marked and it would be available in the office of the defendants) On baseless, flimsy and motivated objections raised by the defendants that they are xerox copies though the originals are with them, it is not allowed to be marked.
C. Adverse Inference and Abuse of process of law :-
On the grounds of approbate and reprobate and also adverse inference the defendants should not be permitted to put forth their defence to plead for the dismissal of the suit as adverse inference in law has to be drawn against them in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, they have wantonly and willfully withheld the original documents to defeat the case of the plaintiffs and thus committed Contempt of Court and abuse of process of law.
D. SUPPRESSION:- Approbate and Reprobate:-

The defendants are trying to take advantage of their own wrong :
By not producing their own documents which are necessary and relevant to the issues involved in the suit and by objecting to the marking of Xerox copies of the relevant documents by the plaintiff, the defendants are blowing hot and cold and approbating and reprobating and hence, their defence has to be struck off. Moreover, they are taking advantage of their own wrong of not producing the records available with them which is strictly prohibited in the eyes of law.
Thus, the defendants have made an attempt to suppress the truth to the knowledge of this Hon’ble Court to defeat the case of the plaintiffs either by hook or crook.
E. Documents of the plaintiffs and the defendants:-

However, the plaintiffs have filed other 19 documents which are mostly the Hon’ble Apex Court proceedings order marked as (Ex.A7), Full Bench Judgment marked as (Ex.A19) and the Hon’ble High Court order of Justice C.Saravanan J dated 30.08.2022 apart from the orders of the Joint Commissioner marked as Ex.A6, Ex.A8,and the receipts of the Temple marked as Ex.A9 , Ex.A10 , Ex.A13, Ex.A15, Ex.A15 to Ex.A18 series of 18 in number which are the Certificates issued by Guha Dheesha Veda Padasala run by the plaintiffs would safely prove the case of the plaintiffs.
All the above documents would clearly prove the service of the plaintiffs mentioned in the schedule of the plaintiffs which they are continuously doing even as on date from time immemorial and they are clearly explained in Column IV of this Written Brief.
The statement made in the 1911 District Gazette of Tirunelveli District referred to at Para 2 of the Full Bench Judgment marked as Ex.A19, Ex.A1 to A5, Ex.A10, Ex.A11, Ex.A12 to Ex.A16, Ex.A17 & Ex.A18 would prove various services done by the plaintiffs mentioned in the schedule as they are all the receipts and the orders passed by the Office of the defendants as explained below under Column No. IV of this Brief and hence the defendants cannot contend that the plaintiffs have not proved the service to the temple by letting in evidence.
F. The Documents not allowed to be marked by the defendants are the public documents the originals of which must be available in the office of the defendants :- Their conduct nay misconduct would not only amount to abuse of process of law but also would lead to the advantage of the plaintiffs on the basic principle of adverse inference :-

The failure to produce the same by the defendants would defeat the very basis of the attack made by the defendants.
Above all, as already pointed out the documents mentioned at PP.27 and 28 of the Plant which were not allowed to be marked though they are public documents by the defendants would clearly prove the service of the plaintiffs to the temple. It is the duty of the defendants to submit all those documents on the file of this Hon’ble Court as they are the public documents as the Government officials owe a duty to the Court to maintain truth and fairness, at least to the courts. But, unfortunately they not only have suppressed those documents but also not permitted the plaintiffs to mark the Xerox copy of those documents.
It is therefore clear that defendants are attempting to suppress the truth to this Hon’ble Court and thereby set at naught the genuine claim of the plaintiffs. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law and an interference with the Justice delivery system. The legal consequence flown from such a conduct is that the defence of the defendants is liable to be rejected in limine on the principles that they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and they cannot approbate and reprobate.
The nature and the name of the document not permitted to be marked on the baseless on the motivated objections raised by the defendants read with other marked documents would clearly make the fact clear that the plaintiffs have been doing the services mentioned in the schedule of their plaint.
G. The Documents marked on behalf of the defendants :- B1 to B36

(i) Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are nothing to do with the service and status of the plaintiff and they are all created not only after 3 years from the date of the suit but also irrelevant to the issues involved in the Suit.
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are the authorization letters of the defendants in favour of their counsels to appear in the suit and they have nothing to do with the claim.
Ex.B3:-
Ex.B3 is the affidavit and the petition of 2022 in the writ petition filed by an individual challenging the show cause notice issued against him for the alleged misconduct of taking persons for the worship for monetary consideration.
Ex.B4:-
Ex.B4 dated 02.12.2022 is the Hon’ble Division Bench Order in the Writ Appeal filed against the interim order passed in the Writ Petition in favour of that individual. The Division Bench Order directed the temple authorities to regulate the administration of the temple to the advantage of the devotees in public interest and avoid the interference by some selfish persons against the public interest.
Ex.B5:-
Ex.B5 dated 24.01.2023 is an order passed in a Writ Petition in favour of an individual revoking the suspension.
Ex.B6 and Ex.B7:-
Ex.B6 is the affidavit and the petition filed by one Seetharaman questioning the action taken against him dated 25.01.2022 and Ex.B7 is the interim order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench in that Writ.
Ex.B8:-
Ex.B8 is the Division Bench Order dated 21.11.2023 in a Writ Appeal filed against the order dated 09.11.2023 revoking the suspension order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal was disposed of by recording the undertaking of the writ petitioner individual that he would not tweet the photograph of the temple work in progress.
The description of Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 above narrated would prove that they all were created after 4 years from the date of the suit and they are all related to the action in respect of an individual and not at all in any manner related to the Denominated Status claimed by the Plaintiffs and their Services to the Temple.

H. Ex.B9 to Ex.B36 :-

H.(i). B10 to B16 have lost its life in view of Ex.A7 – Apex court proceedings.
H.(ii). B21 and B22 have lost its life in view of Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan order in W.P.(MD)No.15248/2024 dated 03.01.2025.
H.(iii). B24 has lost its life because of Ex.A8 their own order.
H. (iv). B9 is not only Irrelevant but bogus.
H (i) Out of 28 documents marked as Ex.B9 to Ex.B36, documents from Ex.B10 to Ex.B16 totally 7 documents have become unreliable in view of the Apex Court Proceedings, Memo of Compromise, Mediation Report and the Apex Court order, marked as Ex.A7.
H (ii) Ex.B21 and B22 totally two documents are no more in existence as they are set aside by the Hon’ble Madurai Bench by its order dated 03.01.2025 in W.P.No.(MD) 15248/2024.
H (iii) Ex.B24 has become ineffective in view of Ex.A8 The order of the Regional Joint Commissioner.
H (iv) B9 is Irrevelant and Bogus:-
Ex.B9 dated Nil and it is the list of Poojas performed for various deities of the temple issued by the Fit Person. It is dated nil and the annexure to Ex.B9 would show page number 20 and it is stated to be the Certificate dated 24.03.1970. The certificate dated 21.03.1970 attached to Ex.B9 has nothing to do with the front page and Ex.B9 and thus B9 seems to have been tempered and it cannot be taken into account at all.
H.(i). Ex.B10 to Ex.B16 OF documents have become ineffective and unreliable:-
Ex.B10 is the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.4/1929 dated 30.09.1930 dealing with Karuvoolam (Jewels Room) and it has become ineffective in view of admission made by the Temple Authorities before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the first para of Memo of Compromise marked as a part of Ex.A7.
Ex.B11 is related to some scheme which is nothing to do with the plaintiffs and it is also subject to Ex.A7 the Hon’ble Apex Court Proceedings and Ex.A6 the Order of the Joint Commissioner confirmed by the Hon’ble Madurai High Court Bench by Justice Mr. C.Saravanan J dated 03.01.2025 in W.P.No.(MD) 15248/2024, Ex.A8, the Joint Commissioner’s order and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, Ex.A9 to Ex.A17.
Ex.B12 is the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench dated nil, July.1986 in the First Appeal dealing with the missing of jewels when they were in the Custody of the Jewels of 3 individuals on 13.02.1964 and the fine paid by them on the basis of that judgment is marked as Ex.B13.
Ex.B14 is the order passed by the learned Single Judge of Hon’ble Madurai Bench in W.P.(MD).No.528/2011 dated 30.01.2011 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by 7 members of the plaintiff sabha questioning the order dated 13.03.2010 and 31.12.2010 directing them to handover the Karuvoolam Keys. This is set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court order marked as Ex.A7.
The same B14 was confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 08.02.2011 and it is marked as Ex.B15. This is also set aside by the Hon’ble Apex Court order marked as Ex.A7 Ddated 09.02.2012.
Ex.B16 is the order passed in A.P.No.13/1977 by the Commissioner dated 30.10.1980 holding that the Karuvoolam Key cannot be with the service holder as it is against Section 42 of the Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment Act. This 1980 order also must be deemed to have been ineffective in view of the Ex.A7, Apex Court Order.
All the documents from Ex.B10 to Ex.B16 dealing with the Karuvoolam Keys have become unreliable and nullified by the Hon’ble Apex Court proceedings marked as Ex.A7 before whom the defendants have accepted the right of the plaintiffs for the Karuvoolam Keys and their history and status in the first para of the Memo of Compromise, part of Ex.A7.
Ex.B17:- Seerpatham Sevai
Now coming to Ex.B17, it is the judgment in the Appeal case in A.S.No.129/1999 dated 13.06.2002 before the Learned Sub-Court, Tuticorin between the two individual groups related to the Seerapatham Service and the Court held that it has no jurisdiction to decide the case as it is vested with the Joint Commissioner.
Ex.B18:- Seerpatham Sevai
Ex.B18, is the decree in O.S.No.80/2006 questioning the auction attempted to be conducted for lifting Seerpatham and the same was dismissed for default as subsequently the action for auction was dropped and the members of the plaintiff alone have been doing that service even as on date.
Ex.B19 and Ex.B20:- Dealing with Yagasala for the Kumbabishekam of the Temple in 2009 :-
Ex.B19, dated 28.05.2009 and Ex.B20, dated 22.06.2009 are the Judgments of the learned Single Bench dismissing the plea of the Secretary of the Sabha opposing the establishment of Yagasala outside the temple confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench by recording an undertaking from the authorities that they would act strictly in accordance with Vamadeva Paddhatti while following that rituals and ceremonies for Kumbabisheham. Thus,Ex.B19 & Ex.B.20 are nothing to do with the issues involved in this case.
Ex.B21:- Dealt with ThirumeniKaval – Set aside by the Hon’ble Mr.Jusrice Saravanan in W.P.(MD) No. 15248/2024 dated 03.01.2024. Ex.B22 is the additional counter of the plaintiffs in Ex.B1 proceedings:-
Ex.B.21 is the shocking Order of the Regional Joint Commissioner interfering with the order dated 12.11.2012 marked as Ex.A6 passed by another Co-Officer of the same rank in the temple as Executive Officer after the lapse of 12 years by entertaining Suo-Moto Revision as per the order of the Commissioner without even any authority of law. This was set aside by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Saravanan in W.P(MD)No.15248//2024 dated 03.01.2024 and hence it is no more in existence.
Ex.B.22:-
Ex.B.22 is the Additional Counter filed by the Plaintiff in the case culminated in Ex.B21 order. It also must be deemed to be merged with the above writ order.
Ex.B.21 was set aside by the Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.Saravanan and thus B21 and B22 have become nullified.
The defendants also know about Hon’ble Mr.Justice Saravanan’s order as they are the parties to the order and it is not known as to why they have marked Ex.B21 & Ex.B22 in spite of the order of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench in the above writ petition.
Ex.B.23:- Kodipattam related order marked as Ex.B23 has become ineffective in view of Ex.A8.
Ex.B23 is related to Kodipattam Service and the petition was dismissed for default on 27.01.2012 and later the Joint Commissioner himself has given that service to the plaintiff by way of Ex.A8.
The first, third and fourth paras of Ex.A8 would clearly prove various services rendered by the Sabha described in the schedule to the plaint in the present suit.
Ex.B.25:-
The Ex.B25 is the order of the Learned Single Judge of Madurai Bench dated 24.07.2024 setting aside the Order of Suspension against two individuals which has nothing to do with the relief sought for in the present suit.
Ex.B.26 and Ex.B27:-
Ex.B26 is the list of properties of the temple prepared on 12.11.1999 and Ex.B27 is the order of the Commissioner in O.A.50/1949 dated 29.06.1949 in the affidavit filed by an individual Thirisunthirar against Pothimars that they should not be allotted any work in the temple as Travancore got detached and added with Kerala State. The said petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction with an observation that the problem has to be set right only by the Tribunal.
Ex.B.28 to Ex.B36:- License Orders
B28 TO B34 are some of the orders of the temple allocating works and the license to various persons including the plaintiffs which do not mean that they are the employees of the temple as there is no salary for them. All were cancelled by Devasthanam as none came forward to get licences.
So, to sum up in respect of the documents marked by the defendants as explained above, all the documents from Ex.B1 TO Ex B.36 are nothing to do with the exclusive services rendered by the members of the plaintiff Sabha and their claim for Denominational Status.
Infact, Ex B10 to Ex.B16 are marked inspite of Ex.A7 the Hon’ble Apex Court proceedings and it is to be remembered that Ex. B10 to Ex.B16 have become unreliable.
Ex.B21 and B22 are marked in spite of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and it became nullity in view of the said order in W.P.(MD)No.15248/2024 dated 03.01.2025.
Documents of the Defendants B1 to B36 in Brief :-
To sum up,
Ex.B1 and B2 are the Authorization Letters for the engagement of the Advocates for this case.
Ex.B3 and B4 are the Hon’ble High Court Proceedings against an individual of Nov.2022, which are subsequent to the suit and created after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the suit.
Like that, Ex.B5, Ex.B6, Ex.B7 and Ex.B8 are also related to the action taken against an individual which ultimately ended in favour of the individuals.
Ex.B9 though has nothing to do with the suit it seems to have been tampered.
Ex.B11 is related to the Scheme in which the plaintiffs are not and all dealt with.
Ex.B12 is the Judgment of the Division Bench of July 1986 in the First Appeal confirming the action taken against 3 individuals in respect of missing jewels in 1962 and Ex.B13 is the receipt for the fine amount paid by the 3 individuals.
Ex.B14 is the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge confirming the order of the temple for handing over the Karuvoolam Keys confirmed by the Division Bench order marked as Ex.B15 and Ex.B16 and both have lost legal force in view of Ex.A7.
Ex.B.21 was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and Ex.B.22 is the Additional Counter filed in Ex.B.21and hence has no value.
Ex.B.23 is related to Kodipattham service and it was given by Ex.A8.
Ex.B.24 is a Common Order providing the performance of Homam outside the temple.
Ex.B.25 is the order of the High Court in two writ petitions setting aside the suspension order and giving liberty to conduct disciplinary proceedings against them.
Ex.B26 is the list of properties owned by the temple and B.27 is the judgement in the case filed by an individual against Pothiamar and the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction by the learned Sub Court.
Ex.B28 to Ex.B34 are related to certain orders giving licence to certain persons and share in the service by the temple.
Ex.X1 to X10 are the old books and scriptures in which the services of members of the plaintiff sabhas are widely spoken. The relevant parties of the books are marked under column III of this Written Brief :-
I. Conclusion on the Documents :-
In view of what are all stated above we have to safely arrive at a conclusion that the defendants have not produced any counter documents to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs proved by the public documents and court orders apart from the very old Text Books and Scriptures marked as X1 to X10 and hence the suit has to be decreed as prayed for.
III. Contention of the Defendants for Common Head:-
As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of the 7 Judges in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirthaswamiyar Shritar mutt reported in ARR 1954 SC 282, there need not be any Guru to claim denominational status for a community and Guru maybe required for a matter are not in connection with the temple. The same was now followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P.No.6704/2025 dated 25.03.2025.
IV. The evidences for the services mentioned in the schedule to the prayer of the plaint:-
The District Gazetteer of Thirunelvelli district referred to in the Hon’ble Full Bench order namely as Ex.A19 and Ex.A1 to A5, Ex.A6 to A8, Ex.A9 to A17 and Ex.A18 series would prove the service rights of the plaintiffs.
(a) Plaint Schedule 1 :- Supporting Documents to prove Schedule 1 Rights :-
A12, A13 Pattayam and the certificate for pattayam
A19 Full Bench Order reproducing what is said in the Thirunelvelli district Gazette of the year 2016.
A18 Guha Vedha Padasala Certificates 18 in number
X3 – P9
X9 – P64
X9 – P65
X5 – P105
(b) Unmarked Documents : Not allowed to be marked by the defendants but they are all their own documents :-
They are mentioned in the plaint at pages 27 and 28
S.No. 13 dated 20.1.2012.
S.No. 17 dated 10.08.1986
S.No. 20 dated 21.09.1998
S.No.24 dated 14.02.2007
S.No.15 dated 11.06.2012
S.No.16 dated 01.3.2012

BOOKS :-
X9 P68
P66
P65

Schedule 2: Documents to prove the 2nd Schedule Mentioned Rights.
1. Ex.A14
2. Ex.A15
3. Ex,A16
4. Hon’ble Justice Puhalendhi order in W.P.No. 23733/2023 dated 03.09.2024
5. Ex.X9 – P65
Schedule 3: Evidences to prove the rights enjoyed by the plaintiffs in respect of Schedule 3.
1. Ex.X9 – P65
2. Unmarked documents S.No.18 mentioned at p27 and 28 of the plaint
Schedule 4: Evidences to prove the rights of the parties in the Schedule 4.
1. A6 confirmed by Hon’ble Justice Saravanan in WP.N. (MD)15248 OF 2024 dated 3.01.2025
2. A8 – order of the Regional Commissioner dated 29.08.2012
3. X9 – P65
Schedule 5: Documents in respect of the rights of the plaintiffs in Schedule 5.
X9 – P14
P65
Schedule 6: Documents in respect of the rights of the plaintiffs in Schedule 6.
X9 – PP65 to 67
Schedule 7 : Documents in respect of the rights of the plaintiffs in Schedule 7.
Ex.A11
Schedule 8
Unmarked document S.No.10 in the plaint and A7 order of the joint commissioner dated 13.06.2008
Schedule 9: Documents in support of the rights mentioned in Schedule 9.
X9 – P65
P66
P67
P68
Schedule 10: Documents in support of the rights mentioned in Schedule 10.
Documents are A6, A7 & A8 with Devasthanam
Schedule 11 – Ex A6,A7,A8 : Documents in support of the rights mentioned in Schedule 11.
The Register is with Devasthanam
Schedule 12 – A6, A7 and A8: Documents in support of the rights mentioned in Schedule 12.
A6, A7 and A8
X9 – P68.
Schedule 13: Documents in support of the rights mentioned in Schedule 13.
Ex.X9 – PP64 and 65
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Puhalendhi Order in W.P.(MD)No.23733/2023 dated 03.09.2024.
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Saravanan Order in W.P.(MD)No.14248/2024 dated 03.01.2025.
Schedule 14 to Schedule 16
(a) District Gazetteer
(b) Ex.A8
There is a Register in the office of the Temple in Ulthurai. If it is directed to be produced by this Hon’ble Court, everything would come to lime light. All the services mentioned in Schedule to the relief sought in the plaint are even as on date are being enjoyed by the plaintiffs.
Apart from the above documents C1 to C10 the Ancient Scriptures, Writings and the Devasthanam Publications also would prove the salient features of the Sect Thirisuthanthirargal which entitled them to the Denominational Status.
(1) சாட்சி சான்றாவணம் – 1 – U.V. Saminatha Iyer Library, Chennai has given a letter authorizing the staff of the Library to mark the below mentioned Books as X1 to X10.
(2) சா.சா.ஆ.2 – சுப்பிரமணிய பராக்கிரமம் (1922)
பக்கம்: 406 to 409:-

த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர சரித்திரம் – பிரம்மா,விஷ்ணு,சங்கரர் நோக்கி தவம் செய்து வரப்பிரசாதம் பெற்றது – 78,000 த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் விபரமும் அவர்கள் வசிக்கும் ஸ்தல விபரமும் – என்றென்றும் முருகப்பெருமான் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் விட்டு நீங்காமல் இருப்பதால் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர அபேத மூர்த்தி என்ற ரூபத்தில் அருள் பாலிக்கிறார்.
(3) சா.சா.ஆ.3- திருச்செந்தூர் தல வரலாறு (1941) கும்பாபிஷேக நினைவு மலர்
ஆசிரியர் – சண்முகசுந்தரஞ் செட்டியார்
பதிப்பாளர் – G.K.பகவதி கவுண்டர் (ஸ்ரீ சுப்பிரமணியசுவாமி திருக்கோயில், நிர்வாக அதிகாரி)
பக்கம்: 8 to 13
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் ஆறுமுக பெருமானோடு திருச்செந்தூர் வந்தது- தற்போது ஆயிரம் நபர்கள்,குடும்பங்கள் உள்ளன என்ற குறிப்பு – அவர்களே முருகப்பெருமானை ஸ்ரத்தையோடு பூஜை செய்து வந்தனர் – 1928க்கு முன்பு தர்மகர்த்தாக்களாக இருந்தனர் – கோயில் நிர்வாகம் செய்தனர்.
(4) சா.சா.ஆ.4- திருச்செந்தூர் மான்மியம் அல்லது திருச்செந்தூர் தல புராண வசனம்
பக்கம்: 18 to 20
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர சருக்கம் – 78,000 த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் விபரமும் அவர்கள் வசிக்கும் ஸ்தல விபரமும் – 2000, நபர்கள் திருச்செந்தூரில் முருகப்பெருமானை அர்ச்சித்து வந்தனர்.
(5) சா.சா.ஆ.5 – திருச்செந்தூர் தலபுராணம் (ஜெயந்திபுரம் மகாத்மியம்)
மொழிபெயர்ப்பு-ராமசாமி அய்யர்
வருஷம் – 1915

பக்கம் : 82 to 84
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் கூடி சுப்பிரமணிய சுவாமி வள்ளியம்மை விவாகம் செய்து வைத்தல் விபரம்.
பக்கம் : 105 to 112
ஆகாய கங்கைக்கு ஈடான ஸ்கந்த புஷ்கரணி தீர்த்தத்தை த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் பிரார்த்தனைக்கு இணங்க சுப்பிரமணிய சுவாமி உருவாக்கியது – த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் வரலாறுறைத்த அத்தியாயம் [வியாசர் சுகப்பிரம்ம ரிஷிக்கு கூறியது] – பிரம்மா,விஷ்ணு,சிவனிடம் இருந்து வரம் பெற்று மூன்றுலக பிரவேச சுதந்திரம் பெற்று த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் தாமிரபரணி கரையில் அமைந்த ஸிந்து ஸ்தலத்தில் சுப்பிரமணியருக்கு பூஜை செய்து வந்தது.
(6) சா.சா.ஆ.6 – திருச்செந்தூர் ஸ்தலபுராணம் (1963)

பக்கம் : 288 to 289

முருகப்பெருமான்,வள்ளி விவாகத்திற்கு புரோகித சாட்சியாக த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் இருந்தது.
பக்கம் : 341 to 351
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர் வரலாறுத்த அத்யாயம் [வியாச மகரிஷி சுகப்பிரம்ம ரிஷிக்கு கூறியது] – 78,000 த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் விபரம் – 2000, த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்களை முருகப்பெருமான் திருச்செந்தூருக்கு அழைத்து வந்தது – த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் முருகப்பெருமானுக்கு பூஜை செய்தது
பக்கம் : 353 to 370
மாத பூசை விதி உரைத்த அத்தியாயம் – 12 மாதமும் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் விசேஷ பூஜை செய்த விவரம்.
(7) சா.சா.ஆ.7 – திருச்செந்தூர் புராணம்
ஆசிரியர் – ஸ்ரீமத் சிவப்பிரகாச பண்டிதர்
வருஷம் – 1907

பக்கம்:78 to 82
வள்ளியம்மை திருக்கல்யாண (விவாஹம்) விபரம்.

பக்கம்:83 to 84
மாத பூசை விதி உரைத்த அத்யாயம்
பக்கம்:151 to 158
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் வரலாறுரைத்த அத்யாயம்
(8) சா.சா.ஆ.8 – The Sea Shore Temple of Subramanyam (1948)
ஆசிரியர் – ஜே எம் சோமசுந்தரம் பிள்ளை
வருஷம் – 1948
பக்கம் : 16,17
திருநெல்வேலி ஜில்லா கலெக்டர் (1832-1839)என்பவர் திருப்பதி விசாரணை ஸ்தலத்தார்களுக்கு மணி (The huge bell on the ninth story of Raja Gopuram) பரிசளித்த விபரம்.
பக்கம் : 22
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர முக்காணி இனத்தைச் சேர்ந்த வென்றி மாலை கவிராயர் என்பவர் சமஸ்கிருதத்தில் இருந்த ஸ்தலவரலாற்றை தமிழில் மொழி பெயர்த்த விபரம்.
பக்கம்:48
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர ஸ்தலத்தார் குப்பையாண்டி அய்யர் திருக்கோயில் தர்மகர்த்தா என்பதற்கான சான்று.
(9) சா.சா.ஆ.9 – முருகன் கோயில் வரலாறு
ஆசிரியர் – டாக்டர்.நா,கல்யாணசுந்தரம்
வருஷம் – 1989
பக்கம் : 64 to 66 & 80 to 81
முக்காணியர்கள் /த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள்/ஸ்தலத்தார்கள்/கட்டளை அய்யர் ஆகிய அனைத்தும் ஒன்று – ஒரு காலத்தில் கோயில் நிர்வாகம்,பூஜை மேற்கொண்டது – சுப்பிரமணியரும் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரும் வேறில்லை – த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் வரலாறு (புராண சரித்திரம்) – கெசட் கூறும் செய்தி,1916 த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள், கட்டியம் ,சக்தி ஊடல் லீலை 6ம் திருநாள் அன்று திருக்கோயில் சொத்து விபரங்கள் அனைத்தும் தேவஸ்தான நிர்வாகம் திரு த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்களிடம் பட்டோலை வாசித்து ஒப்படைத்தல் இன்றும் நடைமுறையில் இருந்து வருகிறது.
(10) சா.சா.ஆ.10 – திருச்செந்தூர் பிரபந்த திரட்டு
ஆசிரியர் – மு .ரா. அருணாச்சல கவிராயர்
வருஷம் – 1911

பக்கம் : 73 to 81 (ஏங-அக)
த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் வரலாறுரைத்த அத்தியாயம் – மாத பூசை விதி உரைத்த அத்தியாயம்.
THE SERVICE BENEFITS ENJOYED BY THE THIRISWATHANTHIRARGAL FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL ARE SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS A1 TO A19 AND ALSO BY THE OLD SCRIPTURES AND DOCUMENTS UNMARKED

PLAINT ALL SCHEDULES – PG 27 AND 28 OF THE PLAINT:

Schedule 1 – ஸ்ரீ மூலவர் ,ஸ்ரீ ஜெயந்திநாதர்,ஸ்ரீ ஷண்முகர் மற்றும் அனைத்து பரிவார மூர்த்திகளுக்கு பூஜா கைங்கர்ய உரிமை:
Marked documents:
A12,A13 – பட்டயம் மற்றும் அதற்குரிய சான்றிதழ்(Registration of certificate of Antiquities)
A18 – குக திக்ஷா வேத பாடசாலை,பூஜை செய்ய தகுதியானவர்களுக்கு வழங்கப்பட்ட சான்றிதழ்கள் (18 எண்ணம்).
Marked books:
X3 – Pg 9 ( முக்காணியர்கள் திருச்செந்திலாண்டவரை பூஜை செய்தது சம்பந்தமாக )
X9 – Pg 64, Pg 65,Pg 105( முக்காணியர்கள் பணிகள், த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்கள் சுவாமிக்கு பூஜை செய்த உரிமைகள்)
Unmarked documents:
Serial.no:1 – மனோன்மணியம் சுந்தரனார் பல்கலைக்கழகத்தினால் வெளியிடப்பட்ட 1916 வருடத்தின் திருநெல்வேலி அபிசியல் கெசட்
Serial.no:12 – 26/12/2001 சுற்றுப்புற பரிவார மூர்த்தி சன்னதிகள் பூஜை செய்ய அனுமதி அளித்த இணை ஆணையர் கடிதம்
Schedule 2 – அர்ச்சனை மற்றும் அபிஷேக கைங்கர்யம்.
Marked documents:
A14,A15,A16- தேங்காய் உடைப்பு,அர்ச்சனை சகஸ்ரநாமம் தாராபிஷேகம் மற்றும் தாராபஹோமம் பங்குத்தொகை.
Unmarked documents:
Serial.No:13 – 20/01/12 அபிஷேகத்திற்கு உரிய பங்குத்தொகை கடிதம்.
Serial.no:17- 10/8/1986 மூலவர் கோடி அர்ச்சனை,சம்பாவணை வழங்க துணை ஆணையர் வழங்கிய கடிதம்.
Serial.No:20- 21/09/1998 கார்த்திகை ஸ்ரீ ஜெயந்திநாதர் சம்பந்தமாக இணைய ஆணையரின் கடிதம்.
Marked books:
X9 – pg 65
Schedule 3 – தங்கரத புராட்டிற்கு அர்ச்சனை கைங்கரியம் மற்றும் பிரசாதம் வழங்கும் உரிமை
Unmarked documents:
Serial.no:18 – 28/11/2001 தங்கதேர் பங்குத்தொகை சம்பந்தமாக ஆணையர் வழங்கிய கடிதம்.
Marked books:
X9- pg 65
Schedule 4 – திருமேனி காவல் உரிமை
Marked documents:
A6 – இணை ஆணையரின் திருமேனி காவல் சம்பந்தமான உத்தரவு மற்றும் WP(md).no:15248 of 2024 (Honourable Justice C.Saravanan)
Marked books:
X9 – pg65
Schedule 5 – சந்தனம் அரைக்கும் உரிமை
Marked books:
X9 – pg 14 and 65.
Schedule 6 – மடப்பள்ளி உரிமை
Marked books:
X9 – pg 65 and 67.
Schedule 7 – மாகாப்பு சாற்றும் உரிமை
Marked documents :
A11 – 2009 அஷ்டபந்தன மகாகும்பாபிஷேகத்தில் மாகாப்பு சாற்றுவதற்கு த்ரிஸ்வதந்திரர்களுக்கு வழங்கப்பட்ட பங்குதொகை.
Schedule 8 – விநாயகர்த்தா உரிமை
Unmarked documents :
Serial.no:10 – 13/06/2008 இணை ஆணையர் செயல்முறை நடவடிக்கைகளில் விநாயகர்த்தா நியமனக் கடிதம்.
Schedule 9 – கட்டியம்,அத்யானம்,புரோகிதம்,ஆசீர்வாதம், பஞ்சாங்கம் மற்றும் அடப்ப உரிமை
Unmarked documents :
Serial.no:14 – 14/02/2009 இணை ஆணையரின் அத்யான முறை பார்த்து வருவதற்கான கடிதம்.
Serial.no:15 – 11/06/2012 புரோகிதம் மற்றும் அத்யான முறை பார்த்து வருவதற்கு இணை ஆணையர் அனுமதி வழங்கிய கடிதம்.
Serial.no:16 – 01/03/2012 புரோகிதம் மற்றும் அத்யான முறை பார்த்து வருவதற்கு இணை ஆணையர் அனுமதி வழங்கிய கடிதம்.
Marked books :
X9 – PG 68,66,65( புரோகிதம்,கட்டியம்,பஞ்சாங்கம்)
Schedule 11 – நித்திய பணி உரிமை
நித்திய பணி உரிமையை காலம் காலமாய் தொன்று தொட்டு செய்து வருகிறோம். நித்திய பணிக்கு படித்தரம் தேவஸ்தானத்தால் வழங்கப்படும்,அதற்குரிய ரெஜிஸ்டர் தேவஸ்தானத்திடமே உள்ளது.
Schedule 12 – பிரார்த்தனை ஹோமம்,பரிஹார ஹோமம், கல்யாண ஹ்ம்ம் செய்து வைக்கும் உரிமை.
Marked books:
X9 – pg 68 ( சுப்பிரமணியசுவாமி மற்றும் வள்ளியம்மைக்கு கல்யாணம் ஹோமம் செய்து செய்து வைக்கும் உரிமை)
Schedule 13 – சேவார்த்திகளின் பிரார்த்தனை, நேர்த்திக்கடன் செய்து வைக்கும் உரிமை.
Marked books:
X9 – pg 64 and 65
Schedule 16 – அறங்காவலர் குழுவில் அறங்காவலராக பொறுப்பேற்கும் உரிமை.
Marked books:
X9 – pg 64 to 66 and 80 to 81 – கோயில் நிர்வாகம்,பூஜை மேற்கொண்டது – மாசி மற்றும் ஆவணி 6-ம் திருநாள் அன்று கோயில் சொத்து விபரங்கள் அனைத்தும் தேவஸ்தான நிர்வாகத்தால் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர ஸ்தலத்தார்களிடம் பட்டோலை வாசித்து ஒப்படைத்தல் இன்றும் நடைமுறையில் இருந்து வருகிறது.
Schedule 10 ,Schedule 14 and Schedule 15:
ஸ்ரீ பலி வேத பாராயண உரிமை – சேவார்த்திகளுக்கு பால்குடம்,காவடி எடுக்கும் உரிமை- தங்ககுடம் பூர்ணகும்ப மரியாதை கொடுக்கும் உரிமை இவை அனைத்தும் த்ரிஸ்வதந்திர ஸ்தலத்தார்கள் தொன்று தொட்டு காலம் முதல் தற்பொழுது வரை சிறப்பாக செய்து வருகிறார்கள்.
V. Prayer :-
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to decree the suit as prayed for and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on the 29th day of August 2025.
R.SINGARAVELAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR
COUSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS  
BEFORE THE LEARNED SUB-COURT-THIRUCHENDUR
O.S.No. 151 /2017
Tiruchendur Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Thrisvathanthirargal @ Sthalathar @ Mukkani Brahmins Through their Swanthira paripalana Sthalatharal Saba Head Kumar Iyer
And One Another … Plaintiffs

Vs.

The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil Tiruchendur
And Others … Defendants

ADDITIONAL WRITTEN BRIEF

R.SINGARAVELAN
SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR
COUSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS