K.V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 1st petitioner, Sri. A.V. Narayanan Nair is the fit person to hereditary trustee and the 2nd petitioner, P. Karunakaran Nair, is a hereditary trustee of Sree Mannampurathkavu Bhagavati Temple, which is a very ancient temple in Malabar. The said temple is administered as per Ext.P1 scheme of administration dated 04.03.1972.

2. The petitioners state that the Temple is under the supervisory control of the 2nd respondent, the Malabar Devaswom Board. As per Ext.P1 Scheme, the administration of Sree Mannampurathkavu Bhagavati Temple, Neeleshwaram, is vested in three families of hereditary trustees and two non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Department.

3. It is further stated that, at present, there are three hereditary trustees and two non-hereditary trustees in the Trustee Board of the Temple. The present non-hereditary trustees were appointed as per Ext.P2 order dated 06.03.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent, Malabar Devaswom Board, is attempting to hijack positions in the Board of Trustees. The appointment of one of the non-hereditary trustees as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees is cited as an instance of such interference. The petitioners contend that there is no justification for appointing a non-hereditary trustee as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

4. The 6th respondent, the Executive Officer of the Temple, issued Ext. P3 notification dated 05.11.2024 inviting applications for the selection to the vacant post of Clerk in the Temple. Pursuant to Ext. P3 notification, 17 applications were received.

5. Subsequently, a meeting of the Trustee Board was convened on 03.12.2024 to discuss the constitution of the interview board. The petitioners, being hereditary trustees, insisted that the interview board must consist of two hereditary trustees and one non-hereditary trustee. The petitioners state that, while recording the minutes of the meeting, it was incorrectly stated that the interview board shall consist of two non-hereditary trustees and one hereditary trustee. The petitioners have produced the true copy of the minutes as Ext. P4.

6. The petitioners assert that decision No. 1 was recorded in Ext. P4 minutes is contrary to the actual decision taken in the meeting and is therefore not acceptable to them.

7. Noticing the incorrect decision in Ext.P4 minutes, the petitioners contacted the Chairman of the 7th respondent Board of Trustees and raised an objection regarding the recording of the wrong decision in the minutes. However, the 7th respondent refused to intervene. Thereafter, the first and second petitioners submitted two separate complaints to the 5th respondent, Assistant Commissioner (Exts. P5 and P6 are the copies of the complaints), regarding the erroneous recording of the decision in Ext.P4 minutes.

8. The petitioners assert that the 5th respondent, the Executive Officer, is hastily attempting to conduct an interview of the candidates on December 25th - 27th 2024, with the intention to select candidates of their choice. It is further contended that they have already decided to appoint one Ullas, S/o. Rameshan, who is the Block Committee member of the political organisation, namely, the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI). The petitioners apprehend that Ext.P4 minutes were incorrectly recorded for facilitating the appointment of Sri. Ullas.

9. Vide Ext.P7 circular No.J8-7347/2010/MDB dated 15.10.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, provides the strict guidelines for the constitution of the interview board. In that circular, it is stated that the interview board is to be constituted by including the Chairman/Managing Trustee/Single Trustees, Division Assistant Commissioner or any official representative as recommended by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer. In the said circular, it is stated that proportionate representation of the hereditary trustees is to be ensured.

10. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

               “(i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for the entire records culminated in Ext.P4 minutes and to quash the same to the extent to which the same constituted an Interview Board in connection with ext.P3 notification;

               (ii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to call for the entire records culminated in Ext. P7 Circular and to quash Clause-2 of Ext.P7 Circular;

               (iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 6 and 7 to convene a meeting of the Board of trustees with prior notice to the petitioners and to constitute an Interview Board in accordance with law and by ensuring proportionate participation of the hereditary trustees in the Interview Board, before proceedings to conduct selection based on ext.P3 notification.”

11. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit raising the following contentions. Sree Mannampurathkavu Bhagavati Temple is a Grade-I temple under the supervisory control of the 2nd respondent Board. The right of administration of the Temple is vested in the Board of Trustees, which consists of three hereditary trustees, two non-hereditary trustees, and the Executive Officer appointed by the Board. The hereditary trusteeship is vested in three families, one of which is the Aramana family. The 1st petitioner was appointed as the fit person as per order No. A4-25/2024 dated 09.04.2024, for a period of one year, as proposed by Sri Gopalan Nair of the Aramana family. Sri Gopalan Nair passed away on 01.01.2025. It is contended that, in view of his demise, the 1st petitioner—who was appointed only as the fit person—has no legal right to claim the reliefs on behalf of the hereditary trustee.

12. It is further contended that the selection of the Chairman of the Trustee Board was conducted on 11.03.2024 in a lawful manner. In that meeting, two hereditary trustees, two non-hereditary trustees, and a fit person representing the other hereditary trustee participated. The allegation that the appointment to the post of Clerk would be conducted in an unfair manner is denied. It is contended that the interview board has been constituted strictly in accordance with Section 48(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Madras HR & CE Act’) and Ext. P7 circular issued by the Board.

13. The 6th and 7th respondents have also filed a counter statement raising contentions that are more or less similar. It is stated that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was elected in the meeting of the Board held on 11.03.2024. Ext. P7(a) is the true copy of the minutes of the said Board meeting. It is further submitted that earlier appointments were also made in the same manner, by an interview board consisting of one hereditary trustee and two other members. To substantiate this contention, the 7th respondent has produced Ext. R7(e), the true copy of the minutes of the Board meeting dated 29.08.2024

14. Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, submitted that Ext.P4 minutes of the board of trustees are vitiated being arbitrary, irrational and unjustifiable, as it included only one hereditary trustee and two non-hereditary trustees. It is submitted that in the meeting held on 03.12.2024, the petitioners insisted that the interview board must contain two hereditary trustees and one non-hereditary trustee. The counsel argued that a decision was taken in the meeting of the Board of Trustees to include two hereditary trustees and one non-hereditary trustee in the interview board. However, it was erroneously recorded in Ext.P4 minutes, as one hereditary trustee and two non-hereditary trustees. Even though the petitioners have submitted Exts.P5 and P6 complaints to the Assistant Commissioner, there was no positive response. The petitioners have also challenged Ext.P7 circular as vitiated due to arbitrariness and being violative of Section 48 of the Madras HR & CE Act, since it does not ensure effective participation of the hereditary trustees.

15. On the other hand, Adv. R. Ranjanie, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board submitted that the petitioners had participated in the Board meeting held on 03.12.2024 and subscribed their signatures in Ext.P4 minutes. Now they cannot turn round and take a plea that the decision of the Trustee Board was erroneously recorded. The petitioners are estopped from taking inconsistent pleas. In other words, Section 115 does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate.

16. It is submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved, the remedy is to approach the civil court. The reliefs claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted by the Writ Court by exercising judicial review. It is also pointed out that, as evident from Ext.P7(e), previous appointments in the Temple were also conducted by a Trustee Board consisting of one hereditary trustee and two other members.

17. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

18. Before we proceed further, it may be useful to extract Section 48 of the Madras HR & CE Act.

               “48. Appointment of office-holders and servants in Religious Institutions.

               1. Vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the office or service is not hereditary.

               2. In cases where the office or service is hereditary, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed.

               3. Where however there is a dispute respecting the right of succession, or where such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or where the person entitled to succeed is a minor without a guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, orWhere the hereditary office holder or servant is suspended from his office under section 49 sub section (1) the trustee may appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the office or perform the service until the disability of the office holder or servant ceases or another person succeeds to the office or service as the case may be.

               Explanation. - In making any appointment under this sub section the trustee shall have due regard to the claims of members of the family, if any, entitled to the succession.

               4. Any person affected by an order of the trustee under subsection (3) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Deputy Commissioner.”

19. Sub Section (1) of Section 48 makes it clear that the vacancies of office holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee.

20. The Malabar Devaswom Board has issued a circular dated 15.10.2010 containing detailed guidelines for the appointment of employees, temporary and permanent. Ext.P7 is the true copy of the said circular.

21. Clause (2) of the said circular states that an interview board shall be constituted, consisting of the Chairman, Trustee Board/Managing Trustee/Single Trustee, the Division Assistant Commissioner or a person nominated by him, and the Executive Officer.

22. The main relief sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P4 minutes to the extent it relates to the constitution of the interview board in connection with Ext. P3 notification for the appointment of the vacant post of a clerk. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision in the Trustee Board meeting convened on 03.12.2022 was to include two hereditary trustees and one non-hereditary trustee. However, in the minutes, it was recorded as one hereditary trustee and two non-hereditary trustees.

23. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext. P4 minutes have been deliberately manipulated so as to ensure the appointment of one Ullas, who is an active worker of the DYFI. The learned counsel further pointed out that proportional representation was denied to the hereditary trustees in the interview board, which would give an upper hand to the non-hereditary trustees in the matter of appointment, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification.

24. However, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that earlier appointments to the temple were also conducted in the same manner. It is further pointed out that the petitioners had subscribed their signatures to Ext.P4 minutes and have now turned around and contended that they are not bound by the said minutes. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that they are estopped from taking such a stand.

25. At this juncture, it may be useful to extract Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.

               “Section 115: Estoppel

               When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.”

26. The corresponding Section in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is Section 121. The principle of estoppel underscores that a party cannot make contradictory claims or assertions in legal proceedings.

27. By applying the principle of estoppel, we hold that the petitioners cannot take a different stand and disown the contents of Ext.P4, minutes after putting their signatures in it. The law does not permit a person to take an inconsistent stand in a suit or proceedings.

28. Even though the petitioners have challenged Ext. P7 circular of the Malabar Devaswom Board, no attempt has been made to indicate that the said circular is arbitrary, irrational, unjustifiable or violative of Section 48 of the Madras HR & CE Act.

29. On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of pleadings and records, we are of the view that the reliefs claimed in the Writ Petition cannot be granted.

The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if so advised. No order as to costs.