Hindu Religious Endowments Act Not Applicable To Mixed Hindu-Christian Trust: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Hindu Religious Endowments Act is applicable only to Hindu Religious and Charitable Trusts and its provisions cannot be applied to a Trust comprising both Hindus and Christians.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi made the observation while dealing with a dispute concerning the management of the Virudhunagar, Thirumangalam, Palayampatti, Kovilan Kulam and Periyakarisalkulam five villages of Sriman Narayana Madam, Panikar Community of Paripalana Manging Trust.

The Bench appointed Justice Ananthi, former Judge of the Madras High Court, as receiver to administer, manage and preserve the Trust and its properties until a duly constituted body is elected under the supervision of the jurisdictional civil court.

The dispute over Trust’s management

The dispute arose after the tenure of the last trustees, including the appellants in the case, ended in August 2021, but fresh elections were not conducted.

The Trust was originally named “Virudhunagar, Thirumangalam, Palayalapatti, Kovilan Kulam, Periyakarisalkulam Hindu, Christian Panikar Community Trust”. Following an order dated January 11, 2017, its name was changed to “Virudhunagar, Thirumangalam, Palayampatti, KovilanKulam, Periyakarisalkulam five villages of Sriman Narayana Madam, Panikar Community of Paripalana Manging Trust”.

The management of the Trust is governed by a decree passed in 1946. Under the decree, six managers, which included three from the Hindu Panikkar community and three from the Christian Panikkar community, were empowered to manage the Trust’s properties and the income arising from them for a period of five years.

The decree further provided that the first committee of managers would hold office for five years, after which fresh elections would be conducted every five years. The outgoing committee of managers was responsible for conducting the subsequent elections.

However, when the five-year tenure of the existing committee ended in 2021, the committee did not conduct fresh elections.

R Bhagavath Sing and P Saravanan, members of the Hindu and Christian Panikars communities, subsequently filed a suit in 2023 against the trustees, including the appellants. They sought a direction to convene a General Body Meeting to elect new administrators to manage the Trust’s properties and also sought appointment of a court commissioner to facilitate the election process.

Madras High Court order

The Madras High Court, in an order dated December 5, 2025, passed on a writ petition, appointed an Election Commissioner and directed that elections to the Trust be conducted in accordance with the 1946 decree.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said the 1946 decree itself provided the answer to the disputes concerning the management of the Trust.

“The decree is a complete answer to all the questions raised not only in these appeals but also to all the disputes. We say so for the simple reason that even the parties to the scheme suit, which resulted in decree to be passed in wayback in the year 1946, were ad idem as to how to workout the future disputes,” the Bench said.

Court noted that the parties had agreed that if there was any difficulty in implementing the scheme, any member of the community, whether Christian or Hindu, could approach the court for suitable directions.

Why did Supreme Court reject the Hindu Religious Endowments Act argument?

The appellants’ counsel argued that the provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act would apply to the Trust.

The Supreme Court rejected the contention, holding that Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the legislation applies to Hindu Religious and Charitable Trusts.

“The said Act being applicable only to the Hindu Religious and Charitable Trust and the instant trust being a combination of both Hindu and Christians, the provisions of the said Act would not be applicable,” Court held.

The Bench said the parties’ remedy for their grievances would lie before the competent civil court which had passed the decree under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Section 92 of the CPC governs suits relating to public charities and religious or charitable trusts to prevent mismanagement and protect public interest.

It also said the parties would be free to approach the jurisdictional court at Virudhunagar for appropriate relief, including a direction for conducting elections, if necessary, by appointing a suitable person.

Former trustees could not continue after their term

The Supreme Court made it clear that trustees whose term had ended in 2021 could not continue to administer the Trust.

“Hence, we permit the parties or any Member of the community to approach the competent civil court which administers the scheme suits as contemplated under section 92 CPC to seek such remedy as may be available to them and reserve liberty in that regard. At the same time, a person who has been appointed as a Manager much earlier and their term having been ended in the year 2021, would not be entitled to continue in administration of the Trust,” the Bench said.

Court also took note of allegations and counter-allegations concerning maladministration and mismanagement of the Trust.

However, it said such disputed questions of fact could not be examined in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

“It is not for this court or the courts exercising the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to examine such disputed questions of fact. It is also an issue which will have to be thrashed out before the civil court, if necessary, by evaluating the evidence that may be tendered by the parties in the scheme suit,” the Bench said.

Receiver appointment to manage Trust

At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that the 1946 decree governing the Trust must be effectively implemented for the benefit of the community.

“Any infraction or deviation would defeat the very purpose of creation of such Trust and the decree drawn,” Court said.

The Bench therefore appointed Justice Ananthi, former Judge of the Madras High Court, as receiver to administer, manage and preserve the Trust and its properties until a duly constituted body is elected under the supervision of the jurisdictional civil court.

Court directed the existing trustees, who are currently managing the Trust’s properties, to forthwith hand over charge to the receiver.

Case Title: P Jeyapandian & Anr Vs N John Issac & Anr

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi

Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026