Temple case
BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
Memorandum Of Writ Petition
W.P.NO. 46624 Of 2025
D. Vivek,
S/o. Dass,
No.43/20, Mandaveli Street,
R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028.
.…Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The District Collector,
Rajaji Salai, Fourth Floor,
Singaravelar Maaligai,
No.62, Beach Road,
George Town, Chennai – 600001.
2. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Building, Chennai – 600003.
3. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Board,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034.
4. The Deputy Commissioner,
Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowments Board,
119, Uttamar Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034.
5. The Sub Registrar,
Office of Sub Registrar,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
6. Mr. Thulasiraman,
S/o. Mr. M.J.Jayasingh,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
7. Mr. Bhoopathi,
S/o. Mr. M.J.Jayasingh,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
8. Mrs. Rani,
W/o. Mr. Bhoopathi,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
9. Mr.B.Boopendran,
S/o. Mr. M.J.Bhoopathi,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
10. Mrs.V. Mohana Devi,
D/o. Mr. M.J.Bhoopathi,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
11. Mrs.R. Gayathri Devi,
D/o. Mr. M.J.Bhoopathi,
No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
12. The Baker’s Choultry Trust,
No.49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil
South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600004.
.…Respondents
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, D. Vivek, S/o. Dass, Hindu, aged about 54 years, residing at No.43/20, Mandaveli Street, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600028, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows;
1. I am the petitioner herein and well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I, being as the beneficiary and in the interest of all beneficiaries in the religious endowment, I am filing this petition to safeguard a historically and religiously significant property from being illegally alienated and encroached upon.
2. I submit that I am a resident of Mylapore, Chennai, and have been residing here for the past 40 years. I am a devotee of the Mylai Kapaleeswarar Temple and am familiar with the history and significance of the land and building located at Survey No. 3533 of Mylapore Village (Part-2), Block No. 69, Mylapore Taluk, Municipal Door No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil South Mada Street, Chennai District. This property forms part of the spiritual and cultural heritage of Mylapore.
3. I submit that the trust property which is known as “Baker’s Choultry Trust”, was dedicated to religious charity of feeding of Brahmins and other poor people on the Arupathu Moovar Nayanar Festival, the celebration of the Brahmotsavam of Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple, Mylapore, Madras. Therefore, the trust property was originally dedicated by bakers known as “Rottikara Choultry” for religious charity. It is borne out in evidence that poor feeding has been done irrespective of the community to all the poors.
4. I submit that the origin of the trust dates back to 11.12.1834 as per the stone inscription and the said stone inscription in the premise indicating the purpose of the charity and the direction thereof and the choultry has got a small residential portion and the bigger area known as “Karpagambal Kalyana Mandapam”, together with three shops in front side the choultry as well as the godown which is of total extent admeasuring 9198 Sq Ft in the trust property. Further, the inscription in the stone slab mentions the way as to how the funds for the trust to be collected. As per the rock cut, the founder of the choultry and the succeeding baker community shall administer the choultry and perform the said food charities and the choultry is to be used as a resting place to feed the poor by the income derived from the properties and the charity is closely associated with Hindu. Therefore, the management is not entrusted with any private individuals or particular family.
5. I submit that in O.S.No.6960 of 1978 on the file of City Civil Court at Madras, wherein it was observed that the property is a public religious charitable trust for the benefit of the ‘Devotees’ who visit during certain Hindu Religious festival and it was also observed that non production of the accounts would show that, M.G.Jayasingh, who is the father of Respondent No. 6 and 7 and paternal grandfather for the Respondents No. 9 to 11 respectively, is using the trust property as a personal property in his individual capacity and he is using the income derived from the suit trust property to maintain his own personal needs and that it also observed that the M.G. Jayasingh did not maintain any account and there was a large accumulation of arrears payable to the corporation. In this regard, M.G.Jayasingh, therefore would not grant any right to act as trustee and that it was decreed finally that T.E. Sridharan is the hereditary trustee of the trust property for the management and possession of the same. Therefore, it is to be noted that the entire portion includes the shops which, of a total area around 9198 Sq Ft, is a trust property and originally dedicated by bakers as “Rottikara Choultry” and for religious charity of feeding irrespective of the community to all the poors.
6. I submit that, M.G. Jayasingh preferred an appeal in A.S.340 of 1981 against the judgement and decree dated 09.04.1981 in O.S.No.6960 of 1978, which was allowed on 04.08.1983 with the following directions:
“In the result, the appeal is allowed with a direction that Deputy Commissioner, HR&CE is to be approached under the provisions of the HR&CE Act for formulation of a scheme for the governance of the trust, in the light of the observations made above by this court.
In as much as the plaintiff has undertaken to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Board on the lines suggested, I am of the view that he should not be mulcted with costs. The appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs”.
In view of the aforesaid, there was no whisper from him in the said appeal suit about the private character of the choultry.
7. I submit that the M.J. Jayasingh, father of the Respondents No. 6 and 7 filed a suit in O.S.919 of 1967, on the file of court of district munsif, Poonamalle claiming the said Choutry property as trust property and having admitted about the nature of properties to be trust properties. Therefore, Respondents No. 6 to 11 are estopped from coming up with a conflict claim in the trust property as their private properties. In several cases filed by Respondents No. 6 and 7 and his father, M.G.Jayasingh, before many competent courts, had admitted that the choultry properties are trust properties. Therefore, the father of the Respondents No 6 and 7, claimed the property as trust property and got decree in O.S.919 of 1967, on the file of court of district munsif, Poonamallee and the said decree was confirmed in
A.S.40 of 1973 on 23.12.1974. In spite of all these facts, the Respondent No 6 to 11 are now estopped from claiming that it is a private property.
8. I submit that M.G.Jayasingh, father of Respondent No. 6 and 7, who being from Vanniya Kula Kshatrikes community, filed an application in O.A.52 of 1985 under Section 64(1) of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1958 to frame a scheme for Bakery Choultry and to incorporate a permanent provision for appointment of Non hereditary trustees from and amongst the member of Vanniya Kula Kshatrikes, who are interested in the conduct of the bakers choultry and took a stand that it is a specific endowment and the said application was later withdrawn and therefore the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.11.1986. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the contention in O.A.52 of 1985 that “the endowment in question as a whole has been dedicated to the members belonging to Rottikar Community.”
9. I submit that the M.G.Jayasingh, father of Respondent No. 6 and 7 filed an application in O.A No. 13 of 87 on the file of the Respondent No. 4, Deputy commissioner, HR & CE department, praying for a declaration that Bakers Choultry existing in Survey No 3533 at No. 23,.South Mada St, Mylapore, Chennai – 4 is not a religious institution as per S. 63(A) of the HR &CE Act 1959, and praying for a declaration that the organisation is not a religious denomination. Therefore, the said application was dismissed on 19.03.1990.
10. I submit that the M.G.Jayasingh, father of Respondent No. 6 and 7, filed an Appeal Petition in A.P.No.85/90 under section 69(1) of Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 before the Respondent No 3, The Commissioner H.R. & CE. Administration Department, Madras – 34 against the dismissal order dated 19.03.1990 in O.A.No.13 of 87 on the file of deputy commissioner, HR&CE. Therefore, the said appeal stating that the nature of the choultry properties was dedicated for the charitable purpose as Specific endowment created therein, was dismissed accordingly.
11. I submit that M.G.Jayasingh, father of Respondent 6 and 7, filed a suit in O.S.No. 4510 of 1994 on the file of City Civil court at Chennai, praying for setting aside the order dated 02.03.1994 in A.P. 85 of 1999, and to declare that the choultry is neither is a religious institution nor a temple. Therefore, since the choultry property is a trust property and not entrusted to a private individual, the plaint is dismissed.
12. I submit that Respondents No. 6 and 7, after the demise of their father, filed an Appeal Suit in A.S No. 128 of 2000 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras filed under Section 70 (2) of HR & C.E.Act 22/1959 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.3.1999 made in O.S. No.4510 of 1994 on the file of the V Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai. Therefore, since the property had been dedicated for the said charitable purpose as per stone inscription, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was confirmed.
13. I submit that the Respondents No. 6 and 7, preferred civil appeal in Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2010 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that the Baker’s choultry as the rock inscription dated 11.12.1834 therein constitutes a specific endowment. Therefore, the said property is not entrusted to any private individual.
Dismissed accordingly.
14. I submit that in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd Respondent herein in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11027 of 2009 was stated that “as per the stone inscription inside the baker’s choultry a specific services i.e feeding to Brahmins and poor people at the time of Arubathu Moovar Brahmotsavam being held at Sri Kapaleeswarar Temple. Therefore, the Baker’s Choultry definitely comes under the HR&CE Act.” Further to that, the Respondent No. 3 also stated that “poor feedings had to be performed in old No 32 and 33, south mada street, Thiruvotriyur, Madras, now dilapidated and occupied by unauthorised tresspassers.” In view of this, it is clear evident that Respondents No 3 and 4, having themselves acknowledged that the subject property is a public trust property covered under HR&CE Act, have failed to invoke section 78 and 79 of any other statutory mechanism to remove the encroachment or protect the trust property.
15. It is submitted that the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd
Respondent in the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11027 of
2009 was stated that pursuant to the direction contained in A.S.
No 340 of 1981, the parties in suit, who is father of the Respondents No 6 and 7 herein, was required to approach Respondent No.4 under provision of the HR&CE Act for the formation of a scheme for proper governance of the trust. However, the parties thereafter proceeded to file an application under section 64(1) of the HR&CE Act in OA No. 52 of 1985, which was subsequently withdrawn and dismissed. Despite the clear mandate in AS No. 340 of 1981 to initiate proceedings for framing a scheme, no scheme has been formed/framed till date. The Respondents No 3 and 4 herein continued inaction amounts to arbitrary non exercise of statutory power and an abdication of their obligations under HR&CE Act. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court must take proactive steps to restore the property.
16. Despite the aforesaid legal decisions, the legal heirs of Mr. M.G. Jayasingh i.e Respondents No. 6 to 11, have made several attempts to grab part of the trust property and finally, illegally registered the settlement deed without having any parent documents and without obtaining any appropriate order from the Hon’ble Court for the same. Shockingly, in 2022, after the Supreme Court judgment, they fraudulently subdivided the trust property without any parent title documents and executed the following settlement deeds:
1. Settlement deed dated 25.10.2021 executed between Boopathy to Rani vide Doc. No. 3420/2021.
2. Settlement deed dated 23.02.2022 executed between Rani to Boopendran vide Doc. No. 739/2022.
3. Settlement deed dated 23.02.2022 executed between Rani to Mohana Devi vide Doc. No. 740/2022.
4. Settlement deed dated 23.02.2022 executed between Rani to Gayathri Devi vide Doc. No. 741/2022.
In view of aforesaid deeds, claiming that a portion of the land admeasuring 5278 Sq.Ft belongs to the Bakers Choultry, and the remaining 3920 Sq. Ft belongs to their family. This claim was made despite the fact that the property has been judicially declared as a religious endowment. Such an act is nothing but a deliberate attempt to create a false narrative of ownership and dilute the religious character of the property. These deeds are wholly contrary to the stone inscription, contrary to the founder’s mandate, contrary to decades of judicial findings, and therefore the said deeds are void ab initio and non est in law.
17. I further state that on the basis of aforesaid said fraudulent documents, planning permission has been granted to
Respondent No 9 to 11 to construct buildings on the trust land. The said constructions are in violation of the sanctioned plan and are being built on trust property. The planning permission was issued on the basis of aforesaid bogus documents, and the property’s patta, still in the name of ‘Rottikara Madam’. The corporation has failed in its duty to verify the ownership and legality of the documents, leading to the unauthorised construction on endowment property. Therefore, the Choultry property cannot be alienated, encroached, or allowed to be privately enjoyed.
18. I submit that the aforesaid courts observed that the total area consists of a smaller residential portion and bigger area known
as “Karpagambal Kalyana Mandapam”, together with three shops in front of the choultry as well as the godown. Further, As per the A-registry and patta, the total extent of choultry admeasuring 3 grounds and 1998 Sq Ft i.e 9198 Sq Ft.
19. I submit that the Respondents No. 9, claiming the land and building in Survey No. 3533 of total extent 1652 Sq Ft of land along with residential and commercial building as his property as per settlement deed dated 23.02.2022 in Doc No.739 of 2022 . At juncture, it is pertinent to note that the stone inscription dated 11.12.1834 is inside the said extent. Further to that, the trust property was fraudulently subdivided without any parent documents to substantiate and also fraudulently obtained NOC as Respondent No. 6 signing in that regard when he is not the hereditary trustee as per any order and even the trust was not registered until 2022. The same was clearly evident in the Encumbrance certificate and in the said settlement deed. Therefore, it is clearly evident that the trust property was alienated and encroached by the Respondents 6 to 11.
20. I submit that Respondents No 9 to 11, without obtaining any permission from the competent court/authority, are building unauthorised construction in the trust property and also demolishing the same only for their personal benefit/gain.
21. I submit that when there is no hereditary trustee in the said trust, Respondent No. 6, who is paternal uncle of the Respondents No 9 to 11, without any appropriate court order and without adhering to the purpose stated in the stone inscription dated 11.12.1834, registered the trust deed dated
29.04.2022 without describing any property extent in the said trust and as per the stone inscription, the choultry is to be managed by the community of bakers and manager does not have any power of alienation with respect to choultry. Contrary to these indications, the Respondent No 6, who does not have any right to be as author of trustee in “the Baker Choultry Trust” and does not belong to Bakers community, registered the trust deed and added board members not as per the stone inscription.
Therefore, the said deed is void ab initio and not est inlaw.
22. I submit that the order dated 27.11.2008 passed in AS 128 of 2000 by the Hon’ble High court Madras, it was observed that an application for appointment of non hereditary trustees, from and amongst members of vanniya kula kshatrikes who are interested in the conduct of the bakers choultry, filed by the father of the Respondents No 6 and 7 and the same was endorsed by the counsel as “ the petition is hereby withdraw”. In view of this, it is submitted that when there is no hereditary trustee, the Respondent No. 6, since he is not hereditary trustee, neither approached any competent court for appointment of the same.
23. I submit that I sent the representation on 21.01.2025 to Respondent No.1 and filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 38064 of 2025 and since I could not ascertain some documents and place before the court, the Hon’ble court was not inclined to grant further time and was dismissed with liberty to file appropriate petition with material, if any, in support of the allegations. Further, I also sent a representation on 18.11.2025 to the respondents No. 1 to 4 herein.
24. It is submitted that the Government, members or trustees of boards/trust, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. When the deeds are executed fraudulently and considered as void, no adjudication is required under HR&CE Act and accordingly this court can direct the authorities to remove the encroacher and restore the trust property. Therefore, It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of Religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. A. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors (Civil Appeal No.3135 of 2007,S.L.P. (Civil) No.26712 of 2005) observed that:
“It is the duty of Trustees, devotees and Government authorities and Courts to protect them – Acts of “fences eating the crops” should be dealt with sternly.”
26. I filed this writ petition in the interest of all beneficiaries, who are poor and devotees as per the stone inscription dated 11.12.1834 and I have no other speedy, efficacious and alternate remedy left. Therefore, I am constrained to knock on the doors of this Hon’ble Court, seeking invocation of its Special Original Jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. The Petitioner reserves his right to file additional grounds on the receipt of the further documents.
PRAYER:
INTERIM:
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order of Ad-Interim Order, directing the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to take immediate protective possession and control of the trust property, Baker’s Choultry Trust, till pending disposal of this writ petition and thus render justice.
MAIN:
It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in nature of Mandamus, directing Respondents No.1 to 5 to forthwith restrain forthcoming alienation or encumbrance in the trust property, Baker’s Choultry Trust situated in Survey No. 3533 of
Mylapore Village (Part-2), Block No. 69, Mylapore Taluk, Municipal
Door No. 49/23, Kapaleeswarar Koil South Mada Street, Chennai District – 60004 and thereby direct to take appropriate action under HR&CE Act and restore the said trust property, and consequently to forbear Respondents No. 6 to 11 herein, their agents, Representatives or any person from claiming any rights, title or interest as per the illegal settlement deeds or pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai X Before me,
On this day of November, 2025 X
and signed his name in my X
presence. X Advocate::Chennai
