Religion Is Not A Cloak For Enrichment, Poojaris Not Entitled To Monies Deposited In Temple Donation Box As A Right: Madras High Court

Noting that religion should not be used as a cloak for enrichment, the bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice KK Ramakrishnan held that hundi collection was a resource for the temple and not the fiefdom of the poojaris.

"Religion is not a cloak for enrichment, nor can piety be promoted for pecuniary gain," the court said.

“Hundi collection is not the fiefdoms of a poosari and is resource held in trust for the community of worshippers and also impressed with a public character. Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases including in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (3 Judges Bench) reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 422], has held that poosaris are not entitled to share in monies deposited in the hundis as matter of right. 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,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas filed by persons claiming hereditary poosariship cum trusteeship (Right to be pujari being accrued hereditarily) in the Arulmighu Pandi Muneeswar Temple in Madurai.

The appellants claimed right under Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act [allowing next in line of succession to be appointed as hereditary trustee of a religious institution], and thus the abolition of hereditary poosariship had no application to the temple. It was also argued that the HR & CE department did not have any right over the administration of the temple.

The State however opposed the pleas and submitted that none of the appellants had been appointed as hereditary trustees of the temple. It was submitted that after the death of family members, some of the appellants had filed applications to consider them as trustees, which were considered in some occasions and rejected in some other occasions.

The State submitted that the writ court had directed the department to make necessary arrangements to control the siphoning off of huge temple donations by the appellants and other private respondents, and in this connection, the impugned orders were passed by the department removing them trustees. The state argued that the department's order was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference.

The court, after due consideration, rejected the argument of the appellants that they were appointed as hereditary trustees, noting that no materials had been produced to substantiate the claim. The court also noted that there was no material to show that the temple was governed by any specific Agama which mandated hereditary priesthood. The court thus upheld the order of the authority that the appellants were not entitled for hereditary poosariship under Section 55 of the HR & CE Act.

Noting the massive collection that the temple received from the devotees and the misappropriation of temple funds by the appellants, the court said that it was imperative for the Government to intervene in the administration of the temple. Noting that such fights for hundi collection shocked the court's judicial conscience, the court held that it was a stark reminder of the need for equitable and responsible financial management.

The court noted that proceedings were pending before the Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowment Department for removing the trustees. The court directed the government to pass orders in the proceedings within 4 weeks.

The court also suggested the Secretary to take over the administration of the temple under its absolute control after following due process of law.

Counsel for Appellant: M/s.J.Anandhavalli

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader, M/s.J.R.Annie Abinaya, M/s.A.V.Arun for Mr.S.M.Arun Kumar, Mr.S.Bageerathan, Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for M/s.D.Deepamathi

Case Title: P Seethalakshmi v The Commissioner

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 147

Case No: W.A(MD)Nos 25, 396, 397, 398 and 399 of 2025 and 198, 199, 209 and 210 of 2026