Madras High Court Disqualifies Temple Trustee Chairman Holding Endowment Lease, Orders Eviction and Property Recovery

Chennai: In a significant ruling concerning the administration of religious endowments, the Madras High Court has declared the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Arulmighu Arunachaleswarar Temple, Thiruvannamalai, disqualified under Section 26(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR&CE Act). The court found that the Chairman, R. Jeevanantham , held a subsisting interest in a lease of property belonging to an endowment attached to the temple, despite attempts to conceal his occupation.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy delivered the common order in two writ petitions (W.P.Nos. 32503 of 2024 & 11487 of 2025), quashing an earlier order by the HR&CE Commissioner that had dismissed complaints against Jeevanantham . The court further directed the immediate recovery of the endowment property and another property belonging to a separate trust ( Ammani Amman Madam ) associated with the temple.

Background: Trustee Disqualification Challenged (W.P. No. 32503 of 2024)

The first petition was filed by T.S.Sankar , alleging that R. Jeevanantham , appointed as a Trustee and elected Chairman in June/July 2023, was disqualified under Section 26(1-A) of the HR&CE Act. This section disqualifies individuals interested in a subsisting lease of property belonging to the religious institution or its endowments.

Sankar contended that Jeevanantham held a lease (registered in 2010) over a 1,995 sq. ft. property belonging to the Kalasanthi Arakattalai , a specific endowment attached to the Arunachaleswarar Temple. He alleged Jeevanantham demolished a century-old heritage structure on the property without permission, constructed a new two-storied building, and occupied it for residential and commercial purposes (TSR Construction). A complaint to the HR&CE Commissioner was dismissed via an order dated 05.04.2024, which Sankar challenged as perverse.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner ( T.S.Sankar ): Argued Jeevanantham 's lease interest was subsisting, evidenced by his continued occupation and actions like obtaining new electricity connections in his name as late as May 2023, claiming ownership. The Commissioner's dismissal ignored clear evidence and reports from subordinate officials.

Respondents (HR&CE & Jeevanantham ): Claimed Jeevanantham vacated the property in December 2013 upon lease expiry and handed over possession. They argued he held no subsisting lease and the property was currently occupied by one S. Ganesan . They also questioned Sankar 's motives, alleging personal enmity related to actions taken against the Ammani Amman Madam Trust (involved in the second writ petition).

Court's Investigation and Findings

Finding the official respondents' defence lacking and the Commissioner's order questionable, the Court directed the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Tiruvannamalai, to conduct an independent inspection.

The DLSA report, submitted in March 2025, corroborated Sankar 's claims and contradicted the respondents' narrative. Key findings included: * Jeevanantham was indeed occupying one shop on the ground floor and the entire first floor residence. * The purported tenant, S. Ganesan , was found to be Jeevanantham 's employee. * Jeevanantham had applied for and obtained a new electricity connection for the residential portion in May 2023, claiming ownership. Steps to transfer connections to the Kattalai's name were only initiated in October 2023 after Sankar 's complaints began. * The original heritage building on the 1,995 sq.ft plot had been demolished and the current structure built by Jeevanantham without permission. * Reports from the Assistant Commissioner and Joint Commissioner (HR&CE) from late 2023/early 2024 also confirmed Jeevanantham 's occupation, which the Commissioner had disregarded in his order.

Justice Chakravarthy strongly criticized the HR&CE Commissioner's impugned order as "absolutely perverse and condemnable" for ignoring the reports of his own officers and relying on questionable statements from a Kattalai trustee, without probing glaring irregularities like the demolition, unauthorized construction, and paltry rent (Rs. 2,000/month) for a substantial property.

The Court found overwhelming evidence proving Jeevanantham 's continued occupation and interest in the lease, stating he was trying to "hide the pumpkin in a bowl of rice". The judge declared Jeevanantham "absolutely unfit to be the trustee" due to the disqualification under Section 26(1-A) and attempts to mislead the court with "false evidence".

> Pivotal Excerpt : "The fifth respondent is eminently unfit to hold the office, being disqualified by law... There is absolute moral bankruptcy on the part of the petitioner who is trying to occupy the property of the Kattalai for his own residence and at the same time have also assumed the office of the Chairman of the board of the trustee of the temple."

Decision and Directions (W.P. No. 32503 of 2024)

The Court allowed the writ petition, ordering: 1. R. Jeevanantham is declared disqualified under S. 26(1-A) HR&CE Act and shall cease to function as Trustee/Chairman forthwith. 2. The entire Kalasanthi Kattalai property (4,400 sq. ft in S.No.1396/1) must be recovered by evicting all unlawful occupants, including Jeevanantham , under Sections 78 & 79 of the Act. The property is then to be leased out via public auction after fixing appropriate rent. 3. Appreciation for the diligent work of Assistant Commissioner M. Jothilakshmi and Joint Commissioner R. Sudharsan to be recorded in their service registers. 4. Show cause notices to be issued to Kalasanthi Kattalai trustees regarding their misconduct; if criminal conspiracy is found, a police complaint is to be lodged. 5. Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the HR&CE Department (Respondents 1 & 2), payable to the DLSA, recoverable from Jeevanantham .

Parallel Case: Ammani Amman Madam Property (W.P. No. 11487 of 2025)

The second petition, also filed by T.S.Sankar (with D. Deepa), sought direction for disposal of their revision petition challenging their eviction from property belonging to the Ammani Amman Madam , another trust associated with the temple. Sankar claimed they held a valid lease from the Madam 's trustee ( T.M. Loganathan ) and their eviction under S.78 was illegal.

The Court, however, found this petition lacked merit. Referencing prior judgments (A.S. No. 347 of 1987, W.P. No. 9361 of 2023, W.A. No. 1014 of 2023), the Court noted: * The property belongs to the original Ammani Amman Madam trust, which is attached to the temple. * T.M. Loganathan 's claim to hereditary trusteeship was rejected previously. * Sankar and others had formed a new trust in 2011 in an attempt to usurp the property, overreaching court orders. * Sankar , being a trustee of this new entity, leasing property to his wife constituted a conflict of interest. * Previous High Court orders had already upheld the eviction, directing Sankar to establish any rights through proper channels (revision/civil suit), which he failed to do before attempting re-entry.

Decision and Directions (W.P. No. 11487 of 2025)

The Court disposed of this petition, refusing the prayer to direct disposal of the revision. Instead, it ordered: 1. The Ammani Amman Madam property (25,247 sq. ft. in S.No.1377) belongs to the original trust, to be administered by the Executive Officer (EO) of the Arunachaleswarar Temple. 2. The property must be secured and used only for facilities benefiting devotees (choultry, rooms, dormitories, parking), reflecting the trust's original purpose. No private residential or commercial use is permitted. 3. Sankar and his associates cannot interfere with the EO securing possession. 4. The HR&CE Commissioner is to nominate qualified trustees to manage the Madam alongside the EO. 5. Police protection to be provided for the property, and any remaining encroachers to be evicted under S.78.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding temple properties and ensuring adherence to the HR&CE Act's provisions regarding trustee qualifications. The court's decisive action against the disqualified chairman and its clear directives for managing both the Kalasanthi Kattalai and Ammani Amman Madam properties aim to restore integrity and ensure these endowments serve their intended religious and charitable purposes for devotees.