KERALA HIGH COURT: ASSETS ACQUIRED BY BHAKTHAJANA SAMITHI AS TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BELONG TO DEITY UNLESS INDEPENDENT FUNDING IS PROVEN:

The Kerala High Court has held that a Bhakthajana Samithi or Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) cannot claim independent ownership over assets acquired during its tenure in connection with temple administration unless it is able to establish that such properties were purchased entirely from its own independent funds and not from donations or contributions made by devotees for temple-related purposes. The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar while deciding a batch of petitions concerning the administration of Thuravoor Mahakshethra and the ownership of immovable properties, movable assets, and valuables acquired in the name of the Bhakthajana Samithi during the period it functioned in relation to the temple.

The dispute arose after the Bhakthajana Samithi, which had earlier functioned as the Temple Advisory Committee, ceased to hold that position following the constitution of a statutory Temple Advisory Committee under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TCHRI Act). The Upadeshaka Samithi alleged that the Bhakthajana Samithi had acquired valuable properties and assets using contributions collected from devotees while functioning for the benefit of the temple and, consequently, such properties ought to vest in the temple. It further alleged that there had been no proper accounting or auditing of the funds collected. The Travancore Devaswom Board also maintained that once the statutory committee was constituted, the Bhakthajana Samithi ceased to function as the Temple Advisory Committee. Although certain articles were handed over to the Board, several valuables, including keys to almirahs and a locker, were allegedly retained. The Board also initiated proceedings to cancel the Samithi's registration insofar as it used the temple's name.

The Bhakthajana Samithi resisted the proceedings by contending that it was an independent charitable society registered under the relevant laws and that the disputed properties had been acquired from its own resources. It argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable against it and that any dispute regarding ownership could only be adjudicated through a civil suit.

Examining the statutory framework, the High Court observed that the TCHRI Act is intended to regulate the administration, supervision, and management of Devaswoms and Hindu religious endowments. It noted that the Act requires Devaswom properties and funds to remain distinct and mandates the Travancore Devaswom Board to administer temple properties and ensure the conduct of worship and temple affairs. Referring to the statutory provisions governing Temple Advisory Committees, the Court held that such committees exist solely to assist, advise, and facilitate the Board in managing temple affairs and conducting festivals. They do not possess a separate legal identity capable of owning temple assets in their own right. Consequently, any assets acquired by a Bhakthajana Samithi while functioning as a Temple Advisory Committee are ordinarily deemed to belong to the deity unless the Samithi proves that the acquisitions were made exclusively from its own independent financial resources.

The Court also examined the bye-laws of the Bhakthajana Samithi and found that its principal objectives were the renovation, restoration, and development of Thuravoor Mahakshethra in coordination with the Travancore Devaswom Board, although the bye-laws also contemplated certain charitable activities. It further noted that one of the settlement deeds relating to the disputed property expressly provided that, in the event the Samithi ceased to exist, the property would vest in the temple. Since the Samithi failed to produce documentary evidence demonstrating an independent source of income for acquiring the properties, its claim of absolute ownership could not be sustained. The Court also relied on Clause 20 of the Temple Advisory Committee Rules, which provides that upon the expiry, termination, or dissolution of a Temple Advisory Committee, all its assets and deposits become the property of the Devaswom Board Fund and are to be utilized exclusively for the development of the concerned temple.

The Bench further took note of an audit conducted by the Kerala State Audit Department, which disclosed serious irregularities in the financial administration of the Bhakthajana Samithi. The audit revealed poor maintenance of registers, absence of stock registers for offerings received from devotees, expenditure on annadhanam without proper accounting, and substantial payments unsupported by vouchers, leading the Court to conclude that the Samithi had failed to maintain transparency in its financial dealings. Relying on earlier decisions, including A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007), Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Committee (2012), and Suo Motu v. State of Kerala (2026), the Court reiterated that Temple Advisory Committees discharge fiduciary responsibilities akin to trustees and cannot appropriate temple properties for their own benefit.

Accordingly, the High Court declared that the properties covered by the disputed sale deeds and settlement deed, together with all structures standing thereon, constitute temple property and vest absolutely in the deity of Thuravoor Mahakshethra. It directed that the properties be administered solely by the Travancore Devaswom Board as trustee of the deity, ordered the revenue authorities to effect mutation accordingly, instructed the Sub Registrars to make necessary entries in the registration records, and directed the Bhakthajana Samithi to hand over all movable properties and valuables to the Board within thirty days. Consequently, the writ petition seeking declaration of the properties as temple assets was allowed, the connected writ petition was dismissed, and the Devaswom Board Audit Report was closed.