Temple Servants Cannot Claim “Lion’s Share” Of Deity Wealth For Personal Luxury; Hundi Collection At Public Temples Are Public Trust: Madras High Court
Court affirmed that the 1970 amendment to the HR&CE Act abolished hereditary priesthood rights.
The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench has delivered clarification on the nature of religious offerings, noting that asserting Hundi collection is not the fiefdoms of a poosari and is a resource held in trust for the community of worshippers and also impressed with a public character. The Court held that any customary practice or antique order allowing priests to appropriate Hundi collections as private property stands superseded by an amendment under Section 55, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959.
While dismissing a series of writ appeals, the Court noted that the abolition of hereditary succession under Section 55 of the Act is absolute for notified public temples. Further clarified that the transition from exempted to notified status brings an institution under the full regulatory ambit of the State, thereby terminating any historical "fiefdoms" held by priest families. The Bench observed that allowing individuals to treat temple revenue as a private inheritance would violate the core tenets of secular administration and the fiduciary duty owed to the worshipping public.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice K. K. Ramakrishnan rejecting the notion that temple servants can leverage hereditary status to divert public donations toward personal enrichment while the institutions themselves may face financial hardship, observed, “…Merely because some monies were directed to be paid to meet their livelihood for their service of poosariship in lieu of remuneration in the year by taking account of that perion income as necessity will not confer any right on the poosaris to get any lion's share in the line of succession as if the said hundis collection is their family property. To invoke antiquated orders of a bygone era as a licence for present impropriety is to mock the march of justice. Hence, any attempt to divert these resources for personal aggrandisement is a betrayal of the very faith that sustains the institution. This court also finds no material to presume that the poosaris have done any welfare activities but have only spent for their lavish expenditure and litigating expenditure. Learned judge also on assessment of record has held that number of persons without doing poojas have been receiving amount…”.
Advocate A. V. Arun appeared for the appellant and R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondents.
The litigation involved the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswarar Temple in Melamadai, Madurai, originally declared an "exempted temple" in 1935, its administration was managed by hereditary trustees from three specific family branches.
Over decades, these families fractured into rival groups, initiating over 130 separate legal proceedings to assert exclusive rights over the temple’s Hundi and plate collections. The Appellants sought to maintain a system where a significant percentage of the deity’s income was distributed among family members as "hereditary poosaris", challenging departmental attempts to regulate the funds.
The Appellants challenged orders from the HR&CE Department which had refused to recognize their claims to a share of the Hundi collections and had classified them as temple servants subject to a mandatory retirement age of 60.
A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed their writ petitions on December 10, 2024, holding that they had no vested right to the deity's wealth. The present Writ Appeals were filed to overturn that decision and reinstate their customary shares.
The Court noted that the 1970 amendment to the HR&CE Act legally extinguished the concept of hereditary office-holders, transforming poosaris into temple servants subject to statutory rules. It held that Hundi collections are not "private property" to be bequeathed via wills or divided through family partitions.
The Bench, in the judgment, at the outset noted that, “Religion is not a cloak for enrichment, nor can piety be promoted for pecuniary gain. This case typifies the fable of monkeys fighting over bread: the priests of the shrine of Pandi Muni, revered as the sentinel spirit of Madurai, are squabbling over the division of devotees’ plate offerings and hundi collections, not to serve God but solely for their own personal gain and luxurious, lavish lifestyles. These disputes have now transformed into number of costly litigations, polluting the religious atmosphere. one such is present litigation relating to issue of hereditary poosariship”.
“…Fighting for share in hundi collection as their family property's accrued income shocks judicial conscience of this court. More particularly on the account of judicial notice of the prevailing condition of temples across the State of Tamil Nadu, where several temples are in a dilapidated condition due to lack of adequate funds. In many instances, financial condition to perform even a single daily pooja is not viable and where numerous temples struggle for basic maintenance and for the conduct of daily poojas due to lack of funds. The stark contrast between such institutions and the present temple, which enjoys substantial and increasing income, underscores the need for equitable and responsible financial management…”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ appeals in their entirety and upheld the Single Judge’s order, and directed the HR&CE Department to expedite pending disciplinary enquiries into allegations of misappropriation against the claimants.
Furthermore, the Bench ordered that the temple’s administration remain with the court-constituted committee to ensure that all offerings are utilised strictly for the temple's maintenance and religious purposes rather than private gain.
Cause Title: P. Seethalakshmi v. The Commissioner, HR&CE Department & Others (W.A.(MD) No. 25 of 2025 and batch)
Appearances:
Appellant: M/s. J. Anandhavalli, A. V. Arun, and M/s. J. R. Annie Abinaya.
Respondents: R. Baskaran, Additional Advocate General, and J. Ashok, Additional Government Pleader, Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s. D. Deepamathi, Advocate.