The righteousness of R. Vijayakumar took in 1908 and 1923 in 1908 and 1923 in India in 1908 and 1923. Photo Credit: Hind
Justice R. Vijayakumar of the Madurai bench in Madras High Court, a judge for a violation of Tirupparankndram Hillock, in which the Lavička division issued a judgment, agreed on Friday to justice Srimatha, one of the two members of the Bench division currently entitled to to leave. He concluded that the restriction of the killing of animals and vegetarian food must continue until the matter decides the competent civil court. With regard to the name of Hillock, the judge ruled that he should be called “tirupparanundram”.
J. Nisha Banu, the second member of the divisional bench, issued another judgment guaranteed by the nomination of the third judge.
Judge Srimathy relied on the 1920 Civil Court, in which the name of Hillock was mentioned as Tirupparankndram. Revenue records also reflect the same.
The justice of Vijayakumar took into account two notifications of Gazette issued in 1908 and 1923 by an archaeological survey of India and noted that they clearly indicated the presence of Sikandar Badusha Dargah and the name of Hillock as Tirupparanundram. There was no reference to Tirupparankundram like “Sikandar Malai”.
As for the victim of animals, he decided that when one party claims that practice has existed since time immemorial and the other party, it denies it, a party that claims that the existence of such a usual practice must approach a competent civic court to create the same.
Statutory bar
The announcements issued probably declare 172.2 acres of soil, covering almost the entire Kopcov, as a protected memorial. According to Rule 8 (g) of ancient monuments and archaeological places and remains the rules of 1959, any animal is forbidden for purpose other than maintenance of monuments. According to Rule 8 (C), cooking or food consumption is also prohibited, except when it is specifically allowed. Therefore, since today, there is a legal bar against the traditional practice of animal victims on the hill, the judge has concluded.
According to the 1920 Citizen Court judgment, the traditional steps of the hill leading to the Nevasthanam Temple and the Subramaniaswama Temple and the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple are included. Therefore, the judge noted that the victim of animals, if allowed, clearly interferes with the religious practice of one community.
Regarding the space for the behavior of prayer/assembly in Inellhopp, judge Vijayakumar noted that Mohammedans have been issued a statement of a title of 33 cents in this area.
In such circumstances, if a large number of people are allowed to offer prayers, the crowd will probably take the way to the Kasi Vishwanathar Temple and the traditional steps leading to the NEN -HOHPPP area, which was declared to the Devasthanam temple. However, overcrowding cannot be a reason for denying the right to offer prayers if it does not replace the way for the devotees and traditional steps leading to the NEVIHOPP area, the judge said.
In the area of Inellhopp, the victim of animals, cooking, carrying or administration of vegetarian food cannot be allowed until the decision has been issued by a competent civic court with regard to the usual practice of animal victims on the hill. In fact, the Devasthanam temple was declared an absolute owner of the traditional tracks leading to the Nevlithopp area. Mohammedans have only the right to use only. Under such circumstances, they cannot use the way for a different purpose than to achieve an area of Inellhopp, the judge added.
The Mohammedans might be allowed to offer prayers in the Nevlithopp area during the Ramzan and Bakrid festival days, subject to conditions and that they will not pollute or spoil traditional traces, he said.
The justice of Vijayakumar agreed to Judge Banu, who rejected a petition that was looking for authorities towards the authorities, so that they could not allow the behavior of prayer in Illitopp. She concluded that she had already crystallized the rights of the parties.
Published – 11 October 2025 01:42
