WRITTEN BRIEF FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S ​Prelude: ​Before proceeding to enter into the area of long drawn legal battle and the heated controversies, the written brief is opened with

IN THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THIRUCHENDUR
​O.S.No. 151 OF 2017
​Thiruchendur, Arulmigu Subramania Swamy,
Thirukovil Thirisuthathirargal @
Sthalathar @ Mukkani Brahmins through
their Swanthiraa Paribalana Sthalathargal
Sabha President Kumar Iyer
And another.
…Plaintiffs
​Vs
​The Executive Officer,
Arumigu Subramania Swamy Thirukovil,
Thiruchendur
And Others.
…Defendants
​I. WRITTEN BRIEF FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF’S
​Prelude:
​Before proceeding to enter into the area of long drawn legal battle and the heated controversies, the written brief is opened with a poem of my thoughts emanated on seeing a priest in the temple with a different hair style and practices:
​”I don’t know wherefrom I have come!
And I don’t know
Where shall I go
On my last breath!
The people around me
On my first realization
Of the world told me
That I have come
From the womb of a Female
And she is my Mother!
And her association with
A Man has brought me
To this World
And he is my Father!
​Alas!
I found that
Even before the realization
Of my Birth
And the so called parents
Rituals were said
To have been performed
On my Birth
Declaring that
I belong to
A particular Religion –
Following the
Customary practices
Adopted by my forefathers!
They have decided
My God and my
Place of Worship too!
​Wonder!
They fixed the
Nature of my Food too!
Wheat or Meat!
I blindly follow
What they say
And what they want me to do!
​Years rolled on and on!
I have grown!
And now they
Come forward
To decide my occupation
And Life Partner too!
As per their time immemorial Customary Practices
And Rituals!
They say
That I am born
To serve for the
Popular and Powerful God in a Temple
And I am taught
And brought up
Only for that.
​They believe blindly that
On the pleasure of
The Deity
By the Services and Rituals
Of Our Sect
The Society
Will Flourish
And the Country
Will move forward!
​Who is myself?
And what for my Birth is?
And what is Religion.
I am not allowed
To Think on my own!
They decide for me
In the name of God!
They declare
That Our Sect is
Born to serve for the Temple
And they claim that they are of denominational status!
​They forgot
That I am an
Individual Human
Having my own
Will and wish!
Love for fellow human
And Love for a hollow omen!
But they say
Love for a human
Is Divine
And it is from God
And our Sect
Is for the
Service of God too!
​What to do?
Thank God
They honor my Love
As God is in Love!
And God is Love!
​Me too
Now made up
To believe so
And choose to
Serve for the God
And for the World
Adopting their
Distinct Features
And Vedic Practices
For the Temple and the People
And for My Love too!”
​The present suit is one such step by a sect to get a declaration for the denominational status to save the sacred, exclusive and distinct religious practices followed by a sect called Mukkinu Brahmins otherwise called Thirusuthanthirarkal.
​II. SUBJECT: NATURE OF THE SUIT AND THE PLEADINGS
​A. Stand of the Plaintiffs
​The Plaintiffs are the Sabhas. The first Plaintiff is represented by the President and the 2nd Plaintiff is represented by the Secretary. They have filed the present suit against the Executive Officer of the Temple (in the rank of Joint Commissioner) and the trustees for the following relief:
​i) For Declaration declaring that the Sthalathars do form a denominational community;
​ii) For Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their religious activities as described in the schedule;
​iii) Award costs;
​iv) Grant appropriate relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit.
​B. Stand of the 1st Defendant
​The first defendant contends the suit is not maintainable because the Temple (the Idol) is not a party; only the Executive Officer is added.
​They claim Sthalathars are temple employees remunerated by cash or paditharam and cannot claim denominational status.
​They claim non-joinder of necessary parties (Government and Commissioner).
​They claim there is no evidence of distinct practices to justify denominational status.
​C. Stand of the 2nd Defendant
​The second defendant’s written statement suggests no conflict of interest regarding the religious practices and notes that constitutional protection exists under Articles 25 and 26.
​D. Representative Capacity – I.A.No.100/2017
​The suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8. On 17.08.2023, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of all Sthalathars representing Thiruchendur Subramaniyaswamy Temple, noting no objections were raised following public notice.
​III. DISCUSSION
​A. Evidence by the Plaintiff
​The plaintiffs filed 29 documents. Documents 10 to 20 (temple orders) were not produced by the defendants, which the plaintiffs argue is fatal to the defense.
​Ex.A19: Thirunelveli Official Gazette (1916) proves the status of the plaintiffs.
​Ex.C6: Vendrimalai Kavirayar’s Thiruchendur Stalapuranam.
​Ex.A7: Supreme Court order dated 23.02.2011.
​Ex.A8: Joint Commissioner order (24.08.2012) revealing Sthalathars have distinct features, dress codes, and hair styles.
​Ex.C1 to C10: Ten old books (ranging from 1907 to 1989) marked via the Librarian of Dr. U.V. Saminatha Iyer Library, Chennai, following the law laid down in the Ram Janma Bhumi case.
​B. Evidence of the Defendants
​The defendants marked 36 documents (Ex.B1 to B36). The plaintiffs argue most are irrelevant:
​Ex.B1-B8: Individual disputes or administrative resolutions unrelated to communal status.
​Ex.B14-B15: Orders that ended in Ex.A7 (the Supreme Court compromise), which actually supports the plaintiffs’ privileges.
​Ex.B28-B35: Orders granting licenses and “Archanai Pangu Thogai” to ThiruSuthanthirargal, which the plaintiffs argue actually support their claim of distinct privileges.
​IV. ISSUES
​Issue No.1: Maintainability of the Suit
​The suit is maintainable because the HR & CE Act does not bar civil suits for declaring denominational status.
​Case Law: N.K.S. Sankarakumara Nadar Vs. Assistant Commissioner (1975) – held that a suit for denominational status under Article 26 must be tried by a Civil Court, as it is outside the purview of Section 63(a).
​Issue No.2: Meaning of Denomination
​Definition: As per the Shirur Mutt case (AIR 1954 SC 282), a denomination is a “collection of individuals classed together under the same name: a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name.”
​Section 107 & 105: The Act specifically states it shall not affect rights under Article 26 or age-old customary honors and perquisites.
​The Sthalathars (Mukkuni Brahmins) have followed exclusive practices from time immemorial, backed by the compromise decree in the Supreme Court (Ex.A7).
​Issue No.3: Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties
​The defendants claim the Government and Commissioner must be parties. The plaintiffs argue that since the relief is restricted to the Thiruchendur Temple, the Executive Officer and Trustees (who manage the temple) are sufficient defendants.
​Issue No.4: 2020 Rules for Appointment
​The defendants cite the 2020 Rules for temple servants. The plaintiffs argue:
​Their rights are based on time-immemorial customs.
​The 2020 Rules have been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court.
​Even under previous rules (1964/2007), their privileges were recognized.
​V. PRAYER
​In view of the indisputable evidence (Ex.A6-A12, A19, B28, B30-B36, and C1-C10), the plaintiffs pray for:
​A decree declaring their denominational status.
​The grant of reliefs sought in the suit to protect their time-immemorial rights.
​Counsel for the Plaintiff’s