The Kerala High Court has held that a Bhakthajana Samithi or Temple Advisory Committee cannot claim independent ownership over assets acquired during its tenure in relation to temple activities, unless it proves that the properties were purchased from its own independent funds and not from collections linked to the temple or devotees.

The Court was hearing connected matters concerning the administration of Thuravoor Mahakshethra, including a dispute over immovable properties, movables and valuables acquired in the name of the Bhakthajana Samithi while it had been functioning in relation to the temple.

A Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar held that “The role of a TAC essentially is to assist the Board in the conduct of the daily rituals and the conduct of the festivals of the temple, as evident from the rules. Normally, it is elected for a period of two years and may continue up to four years in special circumstances as per the orders of the Commissioner or the Board. In other words, the said committee has only a supporting role to assist, aid, and advise the Board in the smooth functioning of the various activities of the temple. Such a committee, in our considered opinion, does not have a separate entity and separate existence. Therefore, the assets acquired by a Bhakthajana Samithi or a TAC, by whatever name called, during their tenure can only be considered as the property of the deity.

The Bench added: “Even though they have purchased the property in the name of the Bhakthajana Samithi, those properties would enure to the temple/deity. If the Bhakthajana Samithi claims that those properties are their independent properties and they have absolute right over those properties, the burden is upon them to prove that they have acquired the properties utilising their independent funds. No documents were produced by the Bhakthajana Samithi to show that they have an independent source of income.”

Advocate B. Pramod appeared for the petitioners, while Standing Counsel G. Santhosh Kumar appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Background

The dispute arose after a Bhakthajana Samithi, which had earlier been recognised to function in relation to the temple, ceased to function as the Temple Advisory Committee following directions for the constitution of a statutory committee under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

The Upadeshaka Samithi contended that the Bhakthajana Samithi had acquired valuable landed properties and movable assets by utilising contributions from devotees while functioning in relation to the temple, and that those properties had to be handed over for the benefit of the temple. It also alleged a lack of proper accounting and auditing of funds.

The Travancore Devaswom Board stated that the Bhakthajana Samithi ceased to exist as the Temple Advisory Committee once a new committee was constituted, and that though some articles were handed over, keys of almirahs and a locker were not surrendered. The Board had also moved for cancellation of the Samithi’s registration using the temple’s name.

The Bhakthajana Samithi resisted the plea, arguing that it was a registered charitable society, that writ proceedings were not maintainable against it, and that the properties were its absolute properties purchased for valid consideration from independent funds. It also contended that questions of title ought to be decided in a civil suit.

Court’s Observations

The Court first examined the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, noting that the Act governs the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu religious endowments.

The Court observed: “The object of the TCHRI Act is to make necessary provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and other Hindu religious endowments and funds.”

It further stated: “Section 30 makes it clear that the properties and funds of the unincorporated Devaswoms shall be kept distinct and separate and shall not be used except for the purposes of those Devaswoms.”

The Court also noted: “Section 31 mandates that the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of Devaswoms and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies in every temple according to its usage.”

Relying on A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007), the Court reiterated that properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards must be protected from wrongful claims, usurpation and misappropriation.

The Court examined Section 31A of the Act and the rules framed for Temple Advisory Committees. It found that such committees exist to ensure participation of Hindu devotees and to assist the Board in temple-related functions, not to acquire an ownership identity independent of the deity.

The Court observed: “Clause (20) mandates that when the tenure of the TAC is over, or it is terminated, or it has become defunct, the assets and deposits of the Samithi would become the property of the Devaswom Board Fund. It is further stated that the assets and the deposits of the TAC shall be utilised for the development of the respective temples alone.”

The Court also considered the Bhakthajana Samithi’s own bye-laws and found that its prime object was renovation, restoration and development of Thuravoor Mahakshethra in coordination with the Devaswom Board, even though it also referred to certain charitable activities.

The Court stated: “On going through the objects of the Bhakthajana Samithi, it is seen that the prime objective of the Bhakthajana Samithi is the renovation and restoration of the Thuravoor Nrisimha and Maha Sudharsana Devasthanam to its pristine glory, in coordination with the TDB. Furthermore, the consecration of two new gold-covered flag staffs (garuda dwhajas) in front of the two deities, namely Nrisimha Moorthi and Maha Sudharsana Moorthy. On a careful reading of the objectives of the Bhakthajana Samithi, it is discernible that the renovation and restoration of the Temple and the developmental activities in the Temple in coordination with the TDB are the prime objectives of the Bhakthajana Samithi. Apart from that, certain charitable activities such as establishing hospitals, construction of libraries, the conduct of spiritual classes, etc., were also stated as the objectives.”

The Court noted that the disputed properties were acquired in the name of the Bhakthajana Samithi during the period when it was functioning as an advisory committee for renovation and development of the temple. It also noted that one settlement deed expressly provided that if the Samithi ceased to exist, the property would vest in the temple.

The Court held that the Samithi had not produced documents to show that the acquisitions came from any independent source of income. Its claim of absolute ownership, therefore, could not be accepted against the statutory and fiduciary character of its role.

The Court observed that Clause 20 of the rules required properties of a Temple Advisory Committee to be handed over to the Board upon termination, defunction or expiry of the committee.

The Court also considered the audit report placed before it regarding the functioning of the Bhakthajana Samithi in its role as Temple Advisory Committee.

The Court noted: “It is pertinent to note that in the audit conducted by the Joint Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit, several irregularities were reported in the accounts of the Bhakthajana Samithi. Certain irregularities noted by the Audit Department are as follows:

i) The maintenance and upkeep of registers is poor.
ii) The Samithi is not maintaining stock registers for the items received from the public as offerings, and its utilisation is not transparent.
iii) Huge amounts were spent for Annadhanam without proper accounting.
iv) Huge amounts were expended without any vouchers.”

It then held: “The audit report would clearly indicate that there is no transparency in the accounting practice followed by the Bhakthajana Samithi.”

The Court relied on Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Committee (2012), where land purchased using funds collected from devotees was held to stand dedicated to the deity, and Suo Motu v. State of Kerala (2026), where this Court held that a Samithi functioning as a Temple Advisory Committee discharged fiduciary functions and could not acquire temple property for its own benefit.

The Court noted that a Samithi functioning as a Temple Advisory Committee must be regarded as acting as a trustee in respect of the temple and its properties.

The Court stated: “After having careful consideration of the various statutory provisions, the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, in the above circumstances, and having regard to the findings recorded herein, we deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as well as the supervisory control vested in this Court over Devaswom Boards and the properties of temples and Devaswoms. Accordingly, in order to restore the position in accordance with law and to safeguard the interests of the deity, the following directions are issued:”

Conclusion

The Court declared that the properties covered by the sale deeds and settlement deed, along with all structures standing on them, constitute temple property and vest absolutely in the deity of Thuravoor Mahakshethra. It held that the properties can be administered and managed only by the Travancore Devaswom Board as trustee of the deity.

The Court directed the revenue authorities to effect mutation in favour of the Travancore Devaswom Board or the deity, and directed the Sub Registrars concerned to make necessary entries in registration records. It also directed the Bhakthajana Samithi to hand over valuables and movable properties to the Board within 30 days. The writ petition seeking a declaration over the properties was allowed, the other writ petition was dismissed, and the Devaswom Board Audit Report was closed.

Cause Title: Thuravoor Mahakshethra Upadeshaka Samithy v. Travancore Devaswom Board (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:49660)

Appearances

Petitioners: B. Pramod

Respondents: G. Santhosh Kumar, Standing Counsel, Advocates Rajit & Sruthi Rajit, Rashmi K.M., Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: