SANCHIT SETH V. COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS. [2026: AHC:146504-DB]:

DATE:17.07.2026

COURT: High Court of Allahabad

BENCH: Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi

FACTS:

The dispute arose following the constitution of a statutory Temple Advisory Committee for Thuravoor Mahakshethra under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, which resulted in the earlier Bhakthajana Samithi ceasing to function as the Temple Advisory Committee. The Upadeshaka Samithi and the Travancore Devaswom Board alleged that, during its tenure in relation to the temple, the Bhakthajana Samithi had acquired valuable immovable properties, movable assets, and valuables by utilising contributions collected from devotees for temple-related activities. They contended that these assets were held in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the temple and, upon the cessation of the Samithi's role as the Temple Advisory Committee, ought to vest in the deity and be administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board. It was further alleged that the Samithi had failed to maintain proper accounts and had not handed over all temple assets, including certain valuables and keys to lockers, despite relinquishing its role.

The Bhakthajana Samithi resisted the claims by asserting that it was an independent charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act and that the disputed properties had been lawfully acquired from its own independent funds. It maintained that the writ petitions were not maintainable against a registered society and argued that any dispute concerning ownership of the properties involved questions of title that could only be adjudicated by a competent civil court. In response, the Travancore Devaswom Board relied upon the statutory provisions governing Temple Advisory Committees and maintained that the Samithi had no independent ownership over assets acquired while functioning in connection with the temple. These rival claims led the Kerala High Court to determine the ownership of the disputed properties and the legal status of assets acquired by a Bhakthajana Samithi while discharging temple-related functions.

ISSUES:

The principal issue before the Kerala High Court was whether a Bhakthajana Samithi functioning as a Temple Advisory Committee could claim independent ownership over immovable and movable assets acquired during its tenure in relation to temple administration, or whether such assets vested in the deity and were required to be administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board. The Court also considered whether the Samithi had discharged the burden of proving that the disputed properties had been acquired exclusively from its independent funds and whether the writ jurisdiction could be exercised to protect temple properties notwithstanding the Samithi's contention that questions of title should be decided by a civil court.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Kerala High Court allowed the writ petition seeking declaration of the disputed properties as temple assets and held that all immovable properties, movable assets, and valuables acquired by the Bhakthajana Samithi while functioning as the Temple Advisory Committee vested in the deity of Thuravoor Mahakshethra. The Court directed that the properties be administered solely by the Travancore Devaswom Board as trustee of the deity, ordered mutation of the properties in favour of the Board or the deity, and directed the Bhakthajana Samithi to hand over all movable properties and valuables within thirty days. The connected writ petition filed by the Bhakthajana Samithi was dismissed.

The Court held that the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Rules governing Temple Advisory Committees clearly establish that such committees are constituted only to assist and advise the Travancore Devaswom Board in the administration of temples and do not possess an independent legal character enabling them to acquire or retain temple assets in their own right. Examining the statutory scheme, the Court observed that Temple Advisory Committees perform a fiduciary function for and on behalf of the deity, and that the Rules expressly provide that, upon expiry, termination, or dissolution of the committee, all assets and deposits become part of the Devaswom Board Fund for the benefit of the concerned temple. The Court also examined the Bhakthajana Samithi's own bye-laws and found that its primary objective was the renovation, restoration, and development of Thuravoor Mahakshethra in coordination with the Travancore Devaswom Board. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that properties acquired while performing temple-related functions must ordinarily be regarded as temple property. Since the Samithi failed to produce documentary evidence demonstrating that the acquisitions had been made exclusively from its own independent financial resources, it failed to discharge the burden of establishing any personal ownership over the disputed properties.

The Court further relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court recognising that temple properties and endowments are entitled to the highest degree of judicial protection against wrongful claims or misappropriation. It attached significance to the audit conducted by the Kerala State Audit Department, which disclosed serious irregularities in the maintenance of accounts, absence of stock registers for offerings received from devotees, expenditure without proper vouchers, and a lack of transparency in financial administration. These findings reinforced the Court's conclusion that the Samithi had not maintained the disputed assets as its independent property. The Court also noted that one of the settlement deeds expressly stipulated that, if the Samithi ceased to exist, the property would vest in the temple, further indicating the intention that the acquisitions were made for the benefit of the deity. Holding that a Temple Advisory Committee functions as a trustee rather than an owner, the Court concluded that permitting the Samithi to assert absolute ownership would be inconsistent with both the statutory framework and the fiduciary nature of its role. Accordingly, it declared the disputed properties to be temple properties and directed their transfer to the Travancore Devaswom Board for administration on behalf of the deity.

ANALYSIS:

The Kerala High Court's decision significantly reinforces the fiduciary nature of Temple Advisory Committees (TACs) and clarifies that such bodies function merely as facilitators of temple administration rather than as independent legal entities capable of acquiring proprietary rights over temple assets. By interpreting the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, together with the Rules governing Temple Advisory Committees, the Court emphasized that the statutory purpose of these committees is to assist the Travancore Devaswom Board in the management and development of temples. Consequently, any assets acquired by a Bhakthajana Samithi while discharging these functions are presumed to have been acquired for the benefit of the deity unless convincing evidence establishes that they were purchased exclusively from independent funds. The judgment places the burden of proof squarely upon the Samithi claiming ownership and thereby strengthens the legal protection available to temple properties against private appropriation by organisations that function in a representative or advisory capacity.

The decision also underscores the judiciary's continuing commitment to safeguarding religious endowments through the application of fiduciary principles and strict accountability standards. By relying upon statutory provisions, earlier judicial precedents, and the findings of the audit report, the Court recognised that transparency in financial administration is indispensable where public donations are collected for religious purposes. The Court's refusal to treat the Bhakthajana Samithi as an independent owner despite its separate legal registration illustrates that the substance of the relationship with the temple prevails over its formal legal status. The ruling therefore serves as an important precedent by affirming that organisations functioning for temple administration hold assets in trust for the deity and cannot convert such assets into private property merely by purchasing them in their own name. In doing so, the judgment strengthens the protection of temple endowments, reinforces the accountability of Temple Advisory Committees, and provides greater certainty regarding the ownership and administration of assets acquired for religious institutions.