(Prayers: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.21264 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this Court.

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.21264 of 2025 dated 05.08.2025 on the file of this Court.)

Common Judgment:

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. This is a common order passed in two writ appeals challenging an order passed by the writ Court on 05.08.2025 in W.P(MD)No.21264 of 2025, one filed by Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (W.A(MD)No.2697 of 2025) represented by its Adheenakarthar Sri-la-Sri Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi (in short 'Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam') and the other, by the Shri Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam (W.A(MD)No.2929 of 2025) represented by its Adheenakarthar Shri-la- Shri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi (in short 'Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi')

2. The matter arose in these circumstances. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had been anointed by the Adheenakarthar of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam on 03.01.2022 as the 28th Adheenakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi appears to have raised some issues relating to the interplay between the functioning of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math and the Thiruvavaduthuram Atheenam, and his tenure was hence marked with some dissension.

3. Matters had come to a head and proceedings had been taken by the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam by issue of a show cause notice to Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi on 05.05.2025. No response had been sent to that notice, and Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai, who appears for Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi would say that the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam has no authority to issue such a notice to his client.

4. Be that as it may, a suit came to be instituted by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi in O.S.No.255 of 2024 before the Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam arraying the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, the Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of HR Department as D1 to D4 respectively.

5. The prayers in suit are as follows:

               'a)To declare that the suit property the copper plate absolutely belonged to the plaintiff and direct handing over of the same.

               b) To declare that the plaintiff is entitled to perform Thiruvanandal Utazadkala Kattalai pooja and to issue a decree of permanent injunction against the 1st defendant.

               c) Direct the 1 defendant to handover the properties described in the copper plate and also all records relating to the income to the plaintiff.

               d) Pass an order of permanent injunction against the 1st defendant restraining him from interfering the activities of the plaintiff and direct Defendants 2 to 4 to supervise the same.

               e) To direct the 1st Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff to cost of the suit.

               f) And to pass such other or orders the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'

6. Written statements have been filed by the defendants. In brief, the defence of Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam is that Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi is a householder and not an acetic, and hence barred from holding the position of Head of the Math. He hence cannot even maintain the suit. Various other defences are raised, specific to the prayers in the suit, with which this Court is not concerned. In the written statement of D3, adopted by D2 to D4, the authorities sail with the stand of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam.

7. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had, on 10.10.2024, married one Hemasri in Ramanagara, Karnataka. When he returned to the Math on 12.11.2024, he was confronted with a mob of people who were visibly disturbed by his marriage as it was perceived to be contrary to the prevailing customs of the Shri Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam.

8. Representatives of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam as well as officials of the HR & CE Department were present. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi handed over the keys of the Adheenam specifically to the officials of the HR & CE Department. According to Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi he was forced to handover the keys/management of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math to the authorities, fearing for his safety, and owing to the pressure extended by the large crowd that had gathered.

9. However, Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, who appears for the HR & CE officials, Mr.V.Chandrasekar, who appears for the Fit Person appointed to manage the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math under proceedings of the HR & CE Commissioner, dated 12.11.2024 and Mr.K.Govindarajan and Mr.K.Chandrasekar, who appear for the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam in the two Writ Appeals, are categoric and speak in one voice, when they say that the handover of the keys by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi, was at his behest, and voluntary.

10. Learned Judge, in order dated 05.08.2025 under appeal before us, has concluded that Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had abdicated his role as Adheenakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, and that the handover of the keys to the HR & CE Department was at his choice, and voluntary.

11. At the time of handing over of the keys on 12.11.2024, Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi executes a document that reads as follows:

               

12. The whereabouts of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi was not known for some time thereafter and his wife had apparently made two online complaints on 13th and 14th November, 2024 (complaint Nos.RUH 2454516 and EUH 24551847) fearing for her husband's safety. On being informed on 27.01.2025 that the complaint had been closed, she appears to have made a complaint before the Director General of Police, Chennai regarding the closure of her grievance without proper enquiry. This representation is undated and has been made some time after 27.01.2025.

13. In the meanwhile, and on the handover of the keys of the Math, the authorities of the HR & CE Department appointed the Executive Officer of the Sri Patteswara Swami Kovil, Kumbakonam, as the Fit Person to administer the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math till such time a Madathipathi was anointed in proper fashion. This was based on the position that there was a vacancy caused in the position of Trustee/Head of the Math.

14. According to Mr.V.Chandrasekar, the Fit Person has been administering the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math and performing all poojas, except the Athmartha pooja, which may be performed only by the Madathipathi.

15. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi then moves W.P(MD)No.10877 of 2025 seeking a Mandamus directing the Executive Officer and the authorities of the HR & CE Department to handover the keys of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math to him, in consideration of the request under his representation dated 13.03.2025. The Writ Petition came to be disposed on 22.04.2025 directing the respondents to consider the request of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi and dispose the same.

16. On 16.11.2024, the Adheenakartha of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam anointed the 29th Adheenakartha of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, Shri-la-Shri Ambalavana Pandara Sannithi following proper procedure and all rituals in this regard.

17.W.P(MD)No.13669 of 2025 was then instituted by the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and the Adheenakarthar, seeking a Mandamus directing the return of the keys of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math to the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam prior to 08.05.2025 such that Guru Pooja may be performed on 11.05.2025, based on its representations dated 17.11.2024 and 17.04.2025.

18. That Writ Petition came to be disposed on 30.04.2025, learned Judge directing disposal of the representations, after hearing the representatives of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and any others who may be interested in the subject matter, within one week from the date of receipt of his order.

19. The authorities have given effect to the directions under orders dated 22.04.2025 and 30.04.2025 in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1560423 of 2025/S2 dated 07.07.2025 and the history of the matter has been captured by the Commissioner in that order. In conclusion, the Commissioner holds as follows:

               '7) ........................ The said Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannidhi has abdicated the Sanyasa Ashramam married one Hemasri on 10.10.2024 and the certified copy of the marriage certificate issued from the Department of Registrar, Government of Karnataka is submitted. During enquiry Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannidhi did not object to this fact.

               8. Under Section 59 (h) of HR & CE Act the provision for removal of trustees under the control of the department is stated as follows:

               '59. Suit for removal of trustee of math or specific endowment attached thereto.—(1) The Commissioner or any two ore more persons having interest and having obtained the consent in writing of 1[the Commissioner], may institute a suit in the Court to obtain a decree for removing the trustee of a math or a specific endowment attached to a math for any one or more the following reasons, namely:

               —

               (h) leading an immoral life or otherwise leading a life which is likely to bring the office of head of the math into contempt;

               Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has abdicated his sannysa ashrama, got married and without any proper information and went out of the Mutt and thus he has abandoned his duties. Further the said Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has acted against Section 59 (h) of HR & CE Act and has brought disrepute to the Mutt. Hence he has rendered himself unfit to function as Madathipathi. Only he get his disqualification duly removed he can do the duties of a Madathipathi. Hence for the present there is no way to hand over the keys to him and his request is rejected.

               9. Only after following the procedure under Section 59 of the Act for removal of Aadheenakartar, a new Aadheenakartar can be nominated. Hence keeping in view the administrative welfare of the Mutt invoking the power under Section 60 of the Act the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Thenupurieswarar Swamy Temple, Patteswaram, Kumbakonam Taluk is appointed as Incharge Officer as per the order of Joint Commissioner of Kumbakonam Circle in Se.Mu.Na.Ka.889/2024/A4 dated 12.11.2024. Under these circumstances the keys of the Mutt and its charge cannot be immediately given to Sri La Sri Subramania Pandara Sannithi and the request of Thiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam is rejected.

               10. The said Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has not administered the mutt properly. It is stated by Tiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam that the general public has leveled various charges against Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi. Sri la Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi can be completely removed only after following procedure. Hence to remove him a suit has to be filed after getting the leave of the Commissioner in proper court invoking Section 59 of the Act. Thiruvavaduthurai Aadheenam is informed that he may take appropriate action for removal of Sri La Sri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi.

               11. The Officer Incharge may take appropriate steps to do poojas according to religious practice of Sivagraha Yogigal Mutt, Suriyanarkoil.'

20. Taking note of Section 59 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (in short ‘Act’) that provides for the institution of a suit for removal of a trustee of a Math or a specific endowment attached thereto, the parties have been directed to approach the civil Court for redress. It is as against order dated 07.07.2025 that Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi approached the writ Court in W.P(MD)No. 21264 of 2025 where the conclusion in proceedings dated 07.07.2025 was confirmed.

21. In fine, the Writ Court:

               (i) confirms proceedings dated 07.07.2025, and as a consequence rejects the request of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi for restoration of possession and control of Shri Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam,

               (ii) confirms the appointment of the Fit Person by the HR & CE authorities,

               (iii) directs the institution of a suit by HR & CE authorities before the competent civil Court within two months from date of receipt of his order,

               (iv) accepts the request of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi, that his personal belongings lying within the Adheenam premises be permitted to be removed by him upon his making a written request to the Commissioner, HR & CE,

               (v) directs that if no suit were instituted by the Commissioner within the two months granted by the Court, the rights of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi shall be governed by the outcome of O.S.No.255 of 2024 instituted by him, or otherwise in accordance with law.

               The above, in sum and substance, is the order of the writ Court under challenge.

22. The Writ Petition has been dismissed even at the stage of admission, and sans the benefit of counters. The presence of one Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore has been noted for Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam. Since, on 18.09.2025 Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam had specifically averred that they had not engaged counsel, including Mr.Brijesh Kishore to appear on their behalf, we passed the following order:

               'Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for R2 & R3, Mr.K.Govindaraj, learned counsel accepts notice for R1 and Mr.V.Chandrasekar, learned counsel accepts notice for R4.

               2. We note that Sri Sivakarayogi Swami Madam is now represented temporarily by the person appointed by HR & CE Department. Hence, there may be changes required to be effected to the cause title. Let the needful be done.

               3. We suo motu implead Shri-la-Shri Mahalinga Pandara Sanithi in his individual capacity. Let his present address be obtained and supplied to the Registry in order that the cause title may be updated and amended.

               4. Notice to R5 returnable by 15.10.2025, privately as well.

               5. Since the writ petition has been disposed without the benefit of counters, counters, as a final opportunity, be filed prior to 13.10.2025.

               6. List on 15.10.2025.

               7. In the meantime, there is a direction to the Registry to place the records relating to W.P.(MD)No. 21264 of 2025 that was disposed on 05.08.2025 with this matter. According to the appellant, they had not engaged any representation, whereas the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 reveals that one Mr.B.Brijesh Kishore, learned counsel has appeared on their behalf.'

23. Mr.Brijesh Kishore coming to know of the hearing of the present appeals before us, has appeared and confirmed categorically that he had been present in the writ Court for some other matters on that date, and though his presence had been recorded in order dated 05.08.2025, Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam had not authorised to him to appear in the matter. No vakalath has been filed by him. We thus directed the parties to file counters in order that the stand of the respondents may be ascertained and be on record. Pleadings are complete and we have heard all learned counsel in detail. We are essentially to decide on the veracity of (i) proceedings dated 07.07.2025 and (ii) the directions under order of Writ Court dated 05.08.2025.

24. One of the contentious issues that arises is as to whether Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had abdicated the position of Adheenam or whether he had been forced to leave against his will. For this purpose, the sequence of events and his conduct are relevant. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had filed W.P(MD)No.10449 of 2025 seeking a Mandamus directing the Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police, Thiruppanandal Police Station to provide police protection to safeguard his life and that of his office bearers to enable them to continue their religious and administrative duties as Madathipathi of Sivagrahayogi Swami Math. That Writ Petition was disposed on 16.04.2025.

25. Learned Judge records the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the police had not received any representation seeking protection from Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi, and that if such representation were to be received, it would be considered in accordance with law, after due consultation with the authorities of the HR & CE Department. The Court also notes that no proof was filed by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi in support of the assertion that a representation/complaint has been made by him.

26. Surprisingly, the submissions made on behalf of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi as recorded in para 2 of order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P(MD)No.10449 of 2025 are as follows:

               '2.According to the petitioner, he is the 28th Adheenakarthar/head of the Suriyanarkovil mutt in succession having assumed the role following the demise of the 27th Gurumaha Sannidhanam. The Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department has acknowledged his appointment via Na.Ka.No.1421/2022, dated 16.05.2022. While so, some persons spread false rumors alleging that he had married a devotee, thereby, questioning the eligibility as Aadheenakarthar with an ulterior motive are interfering with the administration. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation, but the same has not been considered. Hence this petition.'

27. It thus appears that Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had earlier disavowed his marriage before that Court. We had called for the writ affidavit in W.P(MD)No.10449 of 2025 and find therein the following averments:

               '4. I respectfully submit that the heads of the Suriyanarkovil Mutt are lifelong celibates, like those of the Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, Thirupananthal, Thondaimandala Aadheenam, Madurai Thirugnanasambandar Adheenam, and Kuntrakudi Thiruvannamalai Adheenam. They are clad in saffron. Suriyanarkovilis a Kandaparamparai Adheenam, while the others are Nandhiparamparai.

               ......

               6. I respectfully submit that I am the 28th Adheenakarthar/head of the famous Suriyanarkovil mutt in succession, having assumed the role following the demise of the 27th Gurumaha Sannidhanam, Shrilashri Sankaralinga Desiga ParamachariyaS wamigal. Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Kumbakonam acknowledged my appointment via Na.Ka No.1421/2022 dated 16.05.2022 after due inquiry and communicated to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai.

               7. I respectfully submit that while discharging my duties, certain individuals, namely Babu @ Rathinavel S/o. Adhikesavan and Murugan (Panchayat President of Suriyanarkovil), along with their henchmen spread false rumors alleging I had married a devotee named Hemasri, thus questioning my eligibility as Aadheenakarthar with an ulterior motive of interfering with the administration. These actions were aimed at usurping the Aadheenam's valuable precious idols and properties.

               (emphasis supplied)

28. Before us now though, an entirely different stand is taken and Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi agrees that he had indeed married Hemasri on 10.10.2024. His stand now, is that there is no prohibition for such a union.

29. Mr.Rajadurai, would state that there have been instances where the Adheenakartha of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math had been married and draws attention to such a statement in para 5 of affidavit filed in W.P(MD)No.10877 of 2025. The relevant averments read thus:

               '5.I respectfully submit that Suriyanarkovil Aadheenam is believed to be older than the Thiruvavaduthurai and Dharmapuram Aadheenama. On a couple of occasions, married men had headed the Suriyanarkoivl Mutt. The Adheenam at Thuzhavur, Velakurichi, Nachiyarkovil, and Varani in Yazhpanam are headed by family men. Even the Aadheenam of Thiruporur, a Veerasaiva Mutt, is headed by a family man. Such heads are called Velludai Aadheenam (clad in white). In Vaishnavism, one can become a Jeeyar after Vanaprastha.'

30. There is no evidence for the aforesaid factual assertion and the statement is, at the most, vague as Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi merely says 'on a couple of occasions, married men had headed the Suriyanar Kovil Mutt'. This statement however is preceded by a very telling statement in para 4 which reads as follows:

               '4.I respectfully submit that the heads of the Suriyanarkovil Mutt are lifelong celibates, like those of the Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, Thirupananthal, Thondaimandala Aadheenam, Madurai Thirugnanasambandar Adheenam, and Kuntrakudi Thiruvannamalai Adheenam. They are clad in saffron. Suriyanarkovilis a Kandaparamparai Adheenam, while the others are Nandhiparamparai.'

31. The same assertion as above, that the heads of Suriyanar Kovil Math are life long celibates like those of the Thiruvavaduthurai, Dharmapuram, Thirupananthal, Thondaimandalam, Madurai Thirugnanasambandar as well as Kuntrakudi Thiruvannamalai Adheenams, finds place in the affidavits filed in W.P(MD)No.21246 of 2025, (paragraph 5) and in W.P(MD)No.10877 of 2025, (paragraph 4).

32. This is a very categoric and telling statement made by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi and a clear admission as to the custom that the Adheenakarthas of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math are required to be celebate.

33. To get over this, a rejoinder dated 10.11.2025 is filed before us where the deponent curiously claims that there is a typographical error in paragraph 5, and that instead of saying that the heads of Suriyanar Kovil Math are celibates for life, the sentence should have read that the heads of Suriyanar Kovil Math are 'not' celibates for life.

34. In this rejoinder Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi states that 27th Sannidhanam, Shri Sankaralinga Desigar had been married prior to his anointment and that his wife had passed away prior thereto. He also claims that Suyambunatha Thambiran and Masilamani Thambiran of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam are married.

35. We are wholly disinclined to accept the statement of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi in relation to the alleged typographical error. The statement relating to custom relating to celibacy is categoric, repeated not once, but twice in both the Writ Petitions filed by him and he hence, cannot simply wish it away now, as a typographical error.

36. While before us, he categorically admits to the factum of his marriage, he eschews his marriage in the affidavit filed in W.P(MD)No. 10449 of 2025. This prevaricating stand reflects poorly on Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi, and we reject the same as being unworthy of the high office that he earlier held.

37. In proceedings dated 07.07.2025, the Commissioner has held that marriage of the Madathipathi was a disqualification, pointing to Section 59(1)(h) of the Act, that adumbrates the condition that a Madathipathi may not lead an immoral life, or a life which is likely to bring the office of head of the Math, into disrepute or contempt.

38. The conclusion of the Commissioner is that the marriage of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi and his general conduct otherwise, disqualify him from holding the high office of Madathipathi of the Shivagrahayogi Swami Math.

39. In Shri Krishna Singh Vs. Mathura Ahir and others ((1981) 3 SCC 689), taking note of the findings in Ambalavana Pandara Sannithi Avergal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (CDJ 1980 MHC 410) and Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sanmadhi Vs. Kandasami Thambiran ((1887) 1 LR 10 Mad 375), the Court holds that the nominee for the position of the Madathipathi has to undergo a rigorous, religious ritual, observe celibacy and that he should not have been previously married. Though it appears that there are some Maths that do not impose the condition of celibacy, the very admission of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi in his Writ affidavits is that the Madathipathi of the Suryianar Kovil Adheenam is required by custom to be celibate. In any event, and in light of the conclusion that we have arrived at, there is no necessity to dilate any further in this regard.

40. On the question of authority of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam to issue a show cause notice, we have heard the rival contentions to the effect that the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam does not have the power or authority to issue a show cause notice to the Madathipathi of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math. This is really a non- issue, as ultimately, the removal of a Trustee/Head of the Math can only be, by following the procedure laid down under Section 59 of the Act. There can be no two views in this regard. However, the issue to be decided in this case, is whether at all Section 59 has any application.

41. Section 59 reads as follows:

               '59. Suit for removal of trustee of math or specific endowment attached thereto.—(1) The Commissioner or any two ore more persons having interest and having obtained the consent in writing of 1[the Commissioner], may institute a suit in the Court to obtain a decree for removing the trustee of a math or a specific endowment attached to a math for any one or more the following reasons, namely:—

               (a) the trustee being of unsound mind;

               (b) his suffering from any physical or mental defect or infirmity which renders him unfit to be a trustee;

               (c) his having ceased to profess the Hindu religion or the tenets of the math;

               (d) his conviction for any offence involving moral delinquency;

               (e) breach by him of any trust created in respect of any of the properties of the religious institution;

               (f) waste of the funds or properties of the institution or the wrongful application of such funds or properties for purposes unconnected with the institution;

               (g) the adoption of devices to convert the income of the institution or of the funds or properties thereof into “pathakanika”;

               (h) leading an immoral life or otherwise leading a life which is likely to bring the office of head of the math into contempt;

               (i) persistent and willful default by him in discharging his duties or performing his functions under this Act or any other law.

               (2)…………………'

42. The removal of Trustees of a Math/Madathipathi, requires satisfaction of the factual position enumerated under clauses (a) to (h) of Section 59(1). This would require the marshalling and leading of evidence before the civil Courts and it is only thereafter, and based on the Judgment of the civil Court, that a Madathipathi may be removed.

43. However, we are of the categoric view that Section 59 would have no application in the present case, and it is rather Section 60 of the Act that would come into play. Section 60 reads as follows:

               '60. Arrangements when vacancies occur.—

               (1) When a vacancy occurs in the office of the trustee of a math or specific endowment attached to a math and there is a dispute respecting the right of succession to such office, or when such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or when the trustee is a minor and has no guardian fit and willing to act as such or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or when the trustee is by reason of unsoundness of mind or other mental or physical defect or infirmity unable to perform the functions of the trustee, the Assistant Commissioner may take such steps and pass such order as he thinks proper for the temporary custody and protection of the endowments of the math or of the specific endowments, as the case may be, and shall report the matter forthwith to the Commissioner.

               (2) Upon the receipt of such report, if the Commissioner, after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, is satisfied that an arrangement for the administration of the math and its endowments or of the specific endowment, as the case may be, is necessary, he shall make such arrangements as he thinks fit until the disability of the trustee ceases or another trustee succeeds to the office, as the case may be.

               (3) In making any such arrangement, 1[the Commissioner] shall have due regard to the calims of the disciples of the math, if any.

               (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect anything contained in the Tamil Nadu] Court of Wards Act, 1902 Tamil Nadu Act I of 1902).'

44. Section 60 refers to a vacancy in the position of Trustee/Madathipathi. Such vacancy could be caused on account of several factors, such as the attainment of Samadhi, the Madathipathi being a minor, or as in this present case, the impasse caused by virtue of the Madathipathi severing his ties with the Math from October 2024 onwards.

45. Much has been said about the manner in which the keys of the Math were handed over by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi to the HR & CE authorities on 12.11.2024. We have extracted the contents of the document executed by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi on that date, at paragraph 11 supra.

46. It is his case that he was forced to handover the keys, fearing for his life. Clearly there was a mob that had gathered in the premises to protest against what they believed was the ineligibility earned by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi by virtue of his marriage. It is eminently possible that the situation would have been charged, despite which it does not appear as though Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi meekly handed over the keys to the representatives of the Thiruvavadudhurai Adheenam.

47. He, in fact, stood his ground insisting that he would hand the keys over only to the authorities of the HR & CE Department. For a period of five months thereafter ie., 12.11.2024 to 13.03.2025, he did not engage with the activities of the Suriyanar Kovil Math. It was only on 13.03.2025 that he makes a representation asking that the keys be handed back to him and then moves the writ Court seeking a Mandamus for the same.

48. In such a situation, we are of the considered view that the conclusion arrived at by writ Court that the Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had abdicated his possession as Adheenakartha of Sivagrahayogi Swami Math is perfectly in order.

49. Both Mr.K.Chandrasekar and Mr.Rajadurai have relied on Judgments, arguing on the point of whether a resignation could be viewed as bilateral or unilateral (See, Moti Ram Vs. Param Dev and another ((1993) 2 SCC 725) and Dr.Prabha Atri Vs. State of U.P and others ((2003) 1 SCC 701)). These Judgments, in our view, are inapplicable to the present case as we are concerned here, not with the ‘resignation’ of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi but his ‘abdication’, which term is different in connotation from the term resignation.

50. Resignation is a term used in the context of employment, either public or private. Abdication, on the other, connotes dereliction, or a studied indifference, to the duty cast upon one, who holds an exalted position, such as a titular or spiritual head, like a Monarch or Adheenam.

51. Abdication is defined in the Chambers Dictionary (Chambers Harrap Publishers Limited 1995 reprinted 2004) as, to renounce or give up (office or dignity). The Corpus Juris Secundam (Volume I Brookiya, N.Y. (The American Law Book Co.)) says that ‘The word 'abdication' differs from resignation, in that resignation is made by one who has received his office from another and restores it into his hands, as an inferior into the hands of a superior’.

52. Likewise, the Black's Law Dictionary (Tenth Edition (Bryan A.Garner)) defines abdication, as ‘the act of renouncing or abandoning privileges or duties usually those connected with high office; esp., the stepping down from the position of a monarch, the court's abdication of its judicial responsibility’

53. It is not merely the handing over of the keys on 12.11.2024 that determine the fact of abdication by Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi but his conduct in the following months as well, where he chose not to return and resume the position as Head of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, a Saivat Math where daily rituals and poojas have to be performed. Apart from the routine poojas, only the Madathipathi has the privilege and responsibility of performing the Aathmartha pooja. Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has chosen to stay away from the performance of those responsibilities till March 2025 without any demur.

54. This voluntary disengagement with his spiritual responsibilities leads to the unassailable conclusion of his abdication from the role of Aadhinakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam.

55. The direction to the HR& CE authorities to institute a suit under Section 59 of the Act is unnecessary as a vacancy has been caused by the abdication of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi and hence it is the procedure under Section 60 of the HR & CE Act that must be followed.

56. The appointment of a person to manage the Suriyanar Kovil Math as an interim measure is correct, and in fact the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam does not challenge the same, albeit as an interim measure. The use of the nomenclature 'Fit Person' is however incorrect, as it is only an interim manager who should be appointed having regard to the provisions of the HR & CE Act.

57. In this case, the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam has admittedly anointed the 29th Adheenakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math on 16.11.2024 after following the due customary rituals and processes. It is important to note that Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has categorically admitted the authority of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam to anoint the Madathipathi of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math. He really has no choice in this regard, as his very anointment has been by the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam.

58. It is now well settled by a series of Judgments of the civil Courts that the appointment of the Adhenakartha of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math is to be by the Adheenakarthar of the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam (See, Decree in O.S.No.13 of 1946, dated 12.02.1947 and Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.11 of 1945 dated 12.02.1947). In light of the aforesaid, there is no question that the proper authority to make the anointment of the 29th Adheenakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math is the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and with such anointment on 16.11.2024 following proper rituals, nothing further remains to be said on this score. As a sequitur to such anointment, the appointment of the interim manager ceases and he is directed to hand over the management of the Math to Shri-la-Shri Ambalavana Pandara Sannathi forthwith.

59. As early as on 22.04.2024, several months prior to his marriage to Hemasri, Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi had instituted litigation as against the HR & CE officials and the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam, and the prayers have been extracted in paragraph 4 supra.

60. In the order under appeal, there is a direction to the HR & CE authorities to institute a suit under Section 59 of the Act within two months and if they fail to do so, the rights of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi and the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam are to governed by the Judgment to be passed in the suit instituted by the former.

61. That suit has been instituted laying claim towards properties presently held by the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam which Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi believes belong to the Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam. This suit, in our view, would have no bearing to the claim of Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi for restitution to the position of Madathipathi. The directions of the Writ Court on this score are unnecessary and are set aside.

62. One of the objections raised by Mr.Rajadurai is that proceedings dated 07.07.2025 have not been challenged by the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam and hence it is not for them to have filed the present Writ Appeal. This is factually incorrect, as the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam had challenged proceedings dated 07.07.2025 in W.P(MD)No.30222 of 2025.

63. That Writ Petition came to be disposed on 03.09.2025 applying the ratio of order dated 05.08.2025. That apart, Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam is a party to W.P.No.21264 of 2025 as well and it is hence that the Thiruvavaduthurai Adheenam has taken steps as against proceedings dated 07.07.2025 by institution of the present appeal. We hence, and in substance, find no lacunae in the institution of the present appeal.

64. In fine, we uphold the finding of the writ Court to the effect that Shri-la-Shri Mahalinga Pandara Sannithi has abdicated his position as 28th Adheenakarthar of the Sivagrahayogi Swami Math, Shri Suriyanar Kovil Adheenam, and set aside the direction of the Writ Court to the HR & CE authorities to institute a suit under Section 59 of the Act. Needless to say O.S.No.255 of 2024 will proceed in accordance with law. W.A(MD)No.2929 of 2025 is dismissed and W.A(MD)No.2697 of 2025 is allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.