JUDGMENT : 1.These Original Side Appeals have been filed challenging the directions issued in a Common Order in A.No. 3287 of 2025 and A.No. 3291 of 2025, both in C.S.No. 873 of 2018 dated 19.01.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.). 2. C.S.No. 837 of 2018 had been filed by Kandhakotta Ayira Vysiya Beri Chettiar Samooga Munnetra Sangam, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and represented by its Joint Secretary K.Sendilvellan and also by P.S.Rudhrakumar and A.B.Srinivasan, Worshipers of Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam earlier known as Kanthakottam Temple in Chennai, seeking a declaration that the 2 nd to 7 th defendants Educational Institutions are the assets of the 1 st defendant Temple and for consequential direction against the 8 th to 15 th defendants to handover administration of the 2 nd to 7 th defendant Institutions to the elected Board of Trustees of the 1 st defendant Temple and for a declaration that the registration of Sri Muthukumaraswamy Educational Society, the 15 th defendant by the Registrar of Societies, North Chennai as null and void and for a further direction against the 8 th to 15 th defendants to render true and proper accounts and pay to the 1 st defendant a sum of Rs.32/- lakhs earned by them as profits tentatively estimated by the plaintiffs from the year 2010 till the date of the plaint and for an enquiry into future profits from the date of the plaint and for costs of the suit. 3. The 1 st defendant in the suit was Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam, known as Kanthakottam Temple represented by its Executive Officer/Fit Person appointed by the HR & CE Department and the 2 nd to 7 th defendants were the College and Schools run under the aegies of the 1 st defendant and the 8 th to 14 th defendants were said to be holding control of the said Educational Institutions under the shield of the 15 th defendant, Sri Muthukumaraswamy Educational Society. 4. 4. In the said suit, the 18 th and 19 th defendants, P.Uvaraja Sundaram and C.S.Parthsarathy filed Application No. 3287 of 2025 seeking an ad interim direction to appoint an interim Commissioner/Receiver to elect five members as per the Bye-laws of the 15 th respondent/Sree Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam Educational Society from the members of the Abhinava Dharma Shivachariar Matam for appointment as governing members of the 15 th respondent pending disposal of the suit. 5. The 1 st and 3 rd plaintiffs had filed Application No. 3291 of 2025. 6. The learned Single Judge (Mrs. Justice Chitra Venkataraman) by order dated 19.01.2026 observed that an Interim Administrator had been earlier appointed to oversee the functioning of the Devasthanam as well as the Educational Institutions in the absence of the Board of Trustees. It was further noted that the Government had passed G.O.(Ms).No. 182 dated 10.04.2025 identifying and appointing (i) K.Senthil Velan, (ii) V.C.Kandaswamy, (iii) K.Nanda Kumar (iv) A.P.Ashok Kumar and (v) A.N.Suresh Kumar as Trustees. It had also been noted that there was no unanimity in opinion among the said five trustees and three of them, K.Nandakumar, A.P.Ashok Kumar and A.N.Suresh Kumar had unilaterally removed K.Senthil Velan and V.C.Kandaswamy from their position as trustees. It was further observed that such unilateral action was in direct contradiction to the Government Order dated 10.04.2025 and the order of the Division Bench dated 21.04.2025. The learned Single Judge therefore restored K.Senthil Velan and V.C.Kandaswamy to the Board as members of the Board of Trustees. 7. It was thereafter further observed that the Bye-laws of the Devasthanam dated 31.05.1979 provided for a governing body of 10 members, five being non-hereditary trustees who had been nominated by the Government Order and that the remaining five have to be co-opted periodically. 8. The learned Single Judge thereafter observed that the members should belong to Beri Chetty Community and should be followers of the philosophy of Abinava Dharma Sivachariyar. The counsel for the Matam was requested to produce an updated list of members. The same was also filed containing 2960 names. The learned Single Judge then directed that the members of the Matam shall be called to convene at the premise of the Matam on 14.02.2026 to carry out the process of co-option. Necessary directions regarding issuance of notice was also given. It was thereafter stated that the interim administrator earlier appointed could preside and conduct the meeting. The learned Single Judge then directed that the members of the Matam shall be called to convene at the premise of the Matam on 14.02.2026 to carry out the process of co-option. Necessary directions regarding issuance of notice was also given. It was thereafter stated that the interim administrator earlier appointed could preside and conduct the meeting. The meeting shall commence at 10.00 a.m., and if co- option cannot be achieved either in full or in part by 12.00 noon, elections were directed to be held to elect five members by ballot box. It was also directed that the members, who secure the highest number of votes shall be co-opted to the Board. 9. This direction to conduct a meeting of the members of the Matam on 14.02.206 at 10.00 a.m., and the direction to the interim administrator, to preside over the meeting and examine the possibility of co-opting members, failing which to conduct election by ballot box has been put in challenge in these appeals. 10. A few background facts will also have to be necessarily stated: 11. The 1 st plaintiff in the suit, Kandhakotta Ayira Vysiya Beri Chettiar Ssamooga Munnetra Sangam is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 . The objects were to serve for the welfare of Kandhakottam Temple as per the wish of the founder Sri Mari Chettiar and to serve for the welfare of Arulmigu Abinava Dharma Sivachariyar Matam. Ayira Vysiya Beri Chetty Community people, who had attained the age of 18 can become members of the society. They must also be devotees of Sri Muthukumaraswamy Temple earlier known as Kandakottam in Chennai and followers of the philosophy of Abinava Dharma Sivachariyar. 12. The 1 st defendant was the Temple, represented by its Executive Officer. The 2 nd to 8 th defendants were the Educational Institutions run under the aegies of the Temple. It was contended that the 9 th to 14 th defendants claimed to be in administration of the 15 th defendant, Sri Muthukumaraswamy Educational Society. 13. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the registration of the 15 th defendant was null and void and for a further direction to handover the administration of the 2 nd to 8 th Educational Institutions to the 1 st defendant. 14. 13. The suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the registration of the 15 th defendant was null and void and for a further direction to handover the administration of the 2 nd to 8 th Educational Institutions to the 1 st defendant. 14. It is also to be noted that several applications came to be filed in the suit seeking various reliefs. Ultimately, an interim administrator had been appointed to administer the Devasthanam and the Society. 15. The 1 st defendant Devasthanam has to be administered by five trustees. The Government then passed G.O.(P).No. 182 dated 10.04.2025 appointing five non-hereditary trustees. They were so recognised by order dated 21.04.2025. They were, (i) K.Senthil Velan, (ii) V.C.Kandaswamy, (iii) K.Nanda Kumar (iv) A.P.Ashok Kumar and (v) A.N.Suresh Kumar. 16. The Society had to be administered by the said five trustees and by five other members from Beri Chetty Community who have to be co- opted by the five trustees. These five trustees and five co-opted members shall run the Society and in effect, the Educational Institutions. 17. The learned Single Judge in the order now challenged, had however requested the interim administrator to convene a meeting of all the members of the Society and examine the possibility of co-opting five members instead of, according to the appellant, recognising the privilege of the five trustees to so co-opt members. 18. The learned Single Judge in the order had further directed that if there was no unanimity among the members of the Society to co-opt members, then an election should be conducted by ballot box. The directions issued to adopt this procedure has been questioned by the appellants in the present Appeals. 19. This Court, when the Appeals came up for hearing for admission had directed that the interim administrator could proceed to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge and file a report before this Court giving the details of the co-opted members or the details of the elected members. It was also stated that arguments can be advanced in the Appeals and that the procedure adopted would be subject to judicial review. 20. Accordingly, a report had filed by the interim administrator detailing that elections had been conducted in which 11 candidates had participated and giving the list of the votes secured by each candidate. 21. It was also stated that arguments can be advanced in the Appeals and that the procedure adopted would be subject to judicial review. 20. Accordingly, a report had filed by the interim administrator detailing that elections had been conducted in which 11 candidates had participated and giving the list of the votes secured by each candidate. 21. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and Mr.R.Singaravellan, learned Senior Counsel for the 1 st respondent in O.S.A.No. 46 of 2026 and 1 st and 3 rd respondents in O.S.A.No. 32 of 2026 and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the 4 th respondent and Ms. S.P.Arthi, learned counsel for the 20 th and 21 th respondents in O.S.A.No.32 of 2026. 22. Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants pointed out the Bye-laws of Sri Muthukumaraswamy Devasthanam Educational Society regarding constitution of the governing members which is as follows:- 23. Pointing out the above provision, the learned Senior Counsel argued that there shall be 10 members in the Committee of the governing body consisting of Trustees of Sri Muthukumarasway Devasthanam and five members who shall be co-opted for such purpose periodically. He further pointed out that the trustees had the privilege of co-opting five other members. 24. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that five trustees has been appointed by the Government by G.O.(P).No. 182 and had taken charge. They had the exclusive right to co-opt five members from the Beri Chetty Community. The learned Senior Counsel expressed grievance that instead of granting them such opportunity, the learned Single Judge had directed all the members of the Beri Chetty Community, who were followers of Sri Abhinava Dhama Sivachariar Matam to co-opt five members and on failure to come to am unanimous conclusion, to elect five members through ballot box. The learned Senior Counsel argued that this procedure stipulated by the learned Single Judge was in direct contradiction to the Bye-laws of the Society and the valuable right of the trustees to co-opt members had been taken aware. The learned Senior Counsel argued that this procedure stipulated by the learned Single Judge was in direct contradiction to the Bye-laws of the Society and the valuable right of the trustees to co-opt members had been taken aware. He then pointed out the observation of the learned Single Judge that among the five trustees nominated by the Government, there was a division and three members had removed two others and pointed out that still in a meeting conducted and a resolution passed, five members had actually been co-opted and therefore stated that the exercise of an election process was not required. In this connection, learned Senior Counsel argued that if in a meeting two of the members refused to co-operate, then quite correctly, the majority proceeded to nominate members and accordingly, five members, namely R.Lakshmanaswamy, the appellant in O.S.A.No. 32 of 2026, P.S.Sridhar, C.P.Thangaraj and A.Suresh Kumar, the appellants in O.S.A.No. 46 of 2026 and P.Udaya Kumar had been co-opted as members in the meeting of the trustees held on 09.06.2025. 25. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that since the trustees had exercised their right to co-opt five members, the five trustees and the five co-opted members must be permitted to participate in administration of the Society, and in effect the seven Educational Institutions. He therefore contended that the order of the learned Single Judge should be interfered with and set aside. 26. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel also complemented the said arguments and pointed out that when the Bye-laws do not permit co-option of five members for the Society by all the members of the Society or for an election to be conducted, it was impermissible on the part of the learned Single Judge to have directed such procedure to be followed. The learned Senior Counsel contended that five members had been co-opted and the Board had been put in place and therefore this Court should recognise the said Board as the governing body of the Society. He also urged that the Appeals should be allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge should be set aside. 27. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs however disputed such contentions. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when five members had been nominated by the Government, there was a vertical division among them and a resolution had been passed removing two of them by the other three members. 27. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs however disputed such contentions. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that when five members had been nominated by the Government, there was a vertical division among them and a resolution had been passed removing two of them by the other three members. He further pointed out that the bona fide of the said trustees was suspect and therefore the learned Single Judge relegated the issue to all the members of the Society to co-opt or elect five members to run the Society and in effect, the Educational Institutions. 28. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel further pointed out Section 2 (a) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 which is as follows:- “2(a) “Committee” means the governing body of a registered society to whom the management of its affairs is entrusted;” 29. He then pointed out Section 15 (3) of the said Act which is as follows:- “ 15. Committee.- (1) .......... (2) ............. (3) The members of the committee shall be appointed at a meeting of the society by a resolution of a majority of the members present and entitled to vote thereat. (4) ....... (5) .......” 30. The learned Senior Counsel specifically pointed out that the above provision stipulated Section that the members of the Committee shall be appointed at a meeting of the Society by a resolution of a majority of the members present and entitled to vote. He therefore argued that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge was in conformity with the provisions of the Act and claimed that this step was required since there was a vertic division among the five trustees. 31. Ms.S.P.Aarthi, learned counsel pointed out that there was no unanimity among the five members and only three of them had chosen the five co-opted members and contended that it was only appropriate that the learned Single Judge had issued the necessary directions. 32. We also had the benefit of examining the report forwarded by the interim administrator, who had conducted the elections. It was pointed out that totally 1085 members had cast their votes. The results of the elections had also been forwarded. It is also to be noted that the appellants herein had also contested in the said elections. There were 11 candidates. It was pointed out that totally 1085 members had cast their votes. The results of the elections had also been forwarded. It is also to be noted that the appellants herein had also contested in the said elections. There were 11 candidates. The votes secured by each candidate had been given and they were as follows:- Name Score Palani A.B 825 Ramkumar . S 778 Suresh Babu . S 697 Uvaraja Sundaram . P 658 Vijayakumar . G.B 646 Sridhar P.S.S. 342 Lakshmanaswamy 281 Suresh Kumar 266 Dhakshinamurthy .C 264 Thangaraj C.P. 259 Ravikumar K.S. 243 33. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the materials on records. 34. This is an unfortunate litigation by individuals, who are probably more interested in projecting themselves and in taking care of their interest rather than devoting time to discharge their onerous duty as trustees of Sri Muthukumaraswamy Temple. Had they put their self interests behind them and focused only on the administration of the Temple and on the Educational Institutions directly and also on the worshippers of the Temple and of the students and staff of the Educational Institutions, they would not have launched this bitter litigation raising allegations against each other. 35. Be that as it may, the 1 st defendant in the suit is the Temple. It has to be administered by five trustees. They are non hereditary trustees. They have to be appointed by the Government. Accordingly, the Government had passed G.O.(P) No. 182 and had nominated five non hereditary trustees who were:- 1) A.P.Ashok Kumar 2) K.Senthil Velan 3) V.C.Kandaswamy 4) K.Nandakumar 5) A.N.Suresh Kumar 36. The five trustees did not discharge their duty to co-opt five members from the Beri Chetty Community as the governing body of the society which in effect runs the seven educational institutions. There was a direct division among the five members and A.P.Ashok Kumar, K.Nanda Kumar and A.N.Suresh Kumar formed one group and removed K.Senthil Velan and V.C.Kandaswamy and proceeded to co-opt five members, namely, the four appellants herein R.Lakshmanaswamy, P.S.Sridhar, C.P.Thangaraj and A.Suresh Kumar and one more individual, P.Udaya Kumar. But it was imperative that this co-option should have been unanimous. The Bye-laws of the Society had been formulated in the fond hope that the trustees would be united in their endeavour to co-opt members. 37. But it was imperative that this co-option should have been unanimous. The Bye-laws of the Society had been formulated in the fond hope that the trustees would be united in their endeavour to co-opt members. 37. The learned Single Judge had taken very serious note over the removal of two trustees and had issued a direction reinstating them forthwith. This removal of the two trustees was the triggering point which prevailed upon the learned Single Judge to call upon all the members of the community to either co-opt members or to elect members to the governing Board. This procedure is intra-virus the provisions of the Act. When the trustees do not act with unanimity or decide not to discharge their noble responsibilities in common, naturally they will have to be superseded and the members of the society will have to be entrusted with the responsibility to either co-opt members or elect members. This procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge is certainly not violative of the provisions of the Act. We uphold the same. 38. We hold that the provisions of the Act will over ride the Bye-laws of the Society if the Bye-laws are not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Section 15 (3) of the Act which had been extracted above very clearly gives a mandate to the members to elect the members of the committee to govern the Society. We emphatically hold and declare that the learned Single Judge was right in adopting the procedure calling upon the members of the society to exercise this option. The services of the interim administrator was requested to supervise this exercise. We record with deep appreciation that the interim administrator had discharged her duties commendably and to the satisfaction of all the members of the society. 39. A perusal of the election result shows that the five co-opted members of the trustees had miserably lost the elections. They never had the confidence of the voters / members of the community. The wish and choice exercised by the community must be respected by this Court. They had voted freely and voluntarily. The appellants have not raised even a whisper of protest that the procedure adopted during the election was prejudicial. They never had the confidence of the voters / members of the community. The wish and choice exercised by the community must be respected by this Court. They had voted freely and voluntarily. The appellants have not raised even a whisper of protest that the procedure adopted during the election was prejudicial. The results very clearly show that there was a huge difference in the number of votes secured by the top five individuals and by the appellants herein, who secured less than half the number of votes obtained by the members chosen during the election. 40. If the members who were co-opted by the trustees were to be permitted to function, there would be anarchy within the Society. The community people do not want them to function. The members of the community have a right to be heard. The members of the community have a right to express their opinion. The members of the community have a right to seek their voice to be recognised and accepted by the Court. They had cast their votes. They had chosen five individuals (1) A.B.Palani (2) S.Ramkumar (3) S.Suresh Babu (4) P.Uvaraja Sundaram and (5) G.B. Vijaya Kumar. When the trustees failed to take unanimous decision, the members have lost trust in them to discharge their duty to effectively choose members with impeccable character to administer the Society. It is to be noted that they have to administer seven Educational Institutions including one college and six schools. The welfare of the students and the staff will have to kept in mind. The Institutions cannot be a platform for pilferage. We hold that the learned Single Judge had adopted a prudent procedure and we uphold the same. 41. We find no irregularity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. The order had been put into effect. The members of the community have voiced their opinion. The Court has to respect such opinion. The Trustees have lost out by their own misconduct by unnecessarily creating a division among them even in the simple matter of co-opting five members. This division would continue for ever and has to be prevented and prohibited. 42. The members of the community have voiced their opinion. The Court has to respect such opinion. The Trustees have lost out by their own misconduct by unnecessarily creating a division among them even in the simple matter of co-opting five members. This division would continue for ever and has to be prevented and prohibited. 42. We therefore uphold the report of the interim administrator and direct that apart from the five trustees nominated by the Government the five elected members of the society are (1) A.B.Palani (2) S.Ramkumar (3) S.Suresh Babu (4) P.Uvaraja Sundaram and (5) G.B. Vijaya Kumar. 43. The directions of the learned Single Judge had been complied in letter and spirit by the interim administrator and we place our deep appreciation on her and on her team who responded to the call of the Court. 44. The order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed and upheld. The Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.