The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday, 16 December 2025, continued hearing a batch of appeals challenging a single judge’s order permitting the lighting of a lamp at the Deepathoon atop the Thirupparankundram hills.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan heard submissions from Advocate Abdul Mubeen, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board, as the matter was taken up.

At the outset, Justice Jayachandran said the Bench wanted to understand the position of all stakeholders in the dispute.
“We just want to know the view of all stakeholders. Dargah and waqf is one stakeholder, devotee and HR&CE is one stakeholder, state is one stakeholder. We just want to know everyone’s view,” the judge observed.

Referring to historical records, Mubeen relied heavily on a 1920 order to argue that substantial portions of the hill belonged to the Dargah. He submitted that the findings in the earlier proceedings were categorical. “The finding is very clear that flight of steps from Nellithope to hilltop belongs to the Mosque,” he said.

He further argued that the judgment recorded that the mosque and its adjuncts belonged to the Mohammedans. “The findings say that the mosque and its adjuncts belong to the Mohammedans,” Mubeen submitted.

Tracing the history further back, he said even in 1862, there was a finding that lighting a lamp at the summit was not customary.
“Learned judge had given a finding that the summit of hill and its adjuncts belongs to the mosque and that lighting at the top of hill is not customary. This is way back in 1862,” he said, adding that these findings had not been addressed by the single judge.
“The judge (single judge) had missed these findings. This was not addressed,” he argued.

Mubeen also relied on a 1994 judgment, stating that it expressly recognised the binding nature of the 1920 decree. “The 1994 judgement begins with saying that the parties must respect, remember and give regard to the judgement and degree in 1920 case. It stands even today, it was approved by the Privy Council,” he submitted.

Questioning the single judge’s reasoning, Mubeen said the order had failed to consider access rights. “The single judge says one has to climb rocks to reach stone Deepathoon. He hasn’t answered on whether it can be accessed by the Dargah. I’ve been instructed to submit that it can be accessed only through the dargah,” he said, producing photographs to support his claim that access to the stone pillar was only through the Dargah premises.

During the hearing, Mubeen addressed the terminology used for the structure. “The word deepathoon is coined for the first time here. I’m not offended if it’s called a deepthoon also. After all every faith has its own,” he said, to which Justice Jayachandran responded, “For convenience, you can call it a stone pillar also.”

Mubeen contended that the mandapam on the hill also fell within the Dargah’s rights under the 1920 order and that allowing access for the purpose of lighting a lamp raised serious issues of title and easement. “It’s a question of title, right of passage, easement right.. All these questions have to be decided by civil suit. Judge can’t give a specific finding in the writ petition,” he argued.

Drawing an analogy, he said the relief granted by the single judge was akin to a partition. “With all humility I would say that the relief granted in the decree is similar to partition where property has been given to both the brothers of both faith,” he said, adding that once a partition had been settled through the 1920 decree, the court could not permit use of the Dargah steps for lighting the lamp.

Emphasising that the very nature of the structure was disputed, Mubeen said earlier petitions spoke only of lighting the Karthigai Deepam at the hilltop, not at a Deepathoon. “Whether it’s a deepathoon or pillar is a disputed question of fact. Coined for first time in this case,” he said.

Culminating his submissions, Mubeen asserted the Waqf’s claim in clear terms. “Third, the mosque and its adjuncts belongs to us. There’s no dispute that it (pillar) is on the adjuncts. So, it belongs to us,” he said.

Justice Jayachandran remarked in a lighter vein, “Now there are 3 versions of the pillar.”

Mubeen: Third, the mosque and its adjuncts belongs to us. There’s no dispute that it (pillar) is on the adjuncts. So it belongs to us.

Jayachandran (in lighter vein): Now there are 3 versions of the pillar#Thiruparankundram

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) December 16, 2025

Concluding his arguments, Mubeen submitted that when there is a dispute regarding title and claims, parties must approach a civil court and suggested that the matter could also be resolved through mediation, possibly under the guidance of a senior retired judge.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.