#Temple Management

The Allahabad High Court held that a centuries-old public temple, though lacking formal trust deeds, qualifies as a public religious trust under Section 92 CPC, with constructive trust established through long-standing public use and revenue records. This ruling empowers community custodians to seek judicial protection against private encroachment, reinforcing that public religious property cannot be claimed through mere possession or familial succession.

Allahabad High Court reinforces the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies by dismissing a writ petition challenging temple attachment under CrPC Section 145. The court held that civil disputes involving temple management must first be adjudicated under Section 92 CPC before invoking writ jurisdiction, impacting religious institutions and property disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that once a temple dispute is finally adjudicated, a petitioner cannot raise a new claim of Mohtamin status, invoking constructive res judicata, limitation, and the clean hands doctrine. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to reopen settled disputes, affecting stakeholders in temple management and similar public endowment cases.

Madras High Court holds that petitioners may perform annadhanam outside temple premises when the structure is unsafe, affirming right to religious charity despite administrative control.

Madras High Court holds that religious customs with longstanding tradition cannot be upended by recent claims; Kavadi procession restricted to private premises without disrupting community harmony.