A 1946 scheme decree, not the Hindu religious endowments law, governs a Hindu-Christian trust, the Supreme Court has held, naming a retired High Court judge as receiver until fresh trustees are elected.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside Madras High Court orders appointing an Election Commissioner for a community trust run jointly by Hindus and Christians, ruled that the Hindu religious endowments statute does not apply to it, and appointed Justice Ananthi, a former Madras High Court judge, as receiver to manage its properties [P. Jeyapandian and Another v. N. John Issac and Another].
The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi directed the current trustees to hand over possession forthwith, and left the parties to approach the jurisdictional civil court at Virudhunagar for election-related relief.
Six managers, five-year terms
The trust looks after five villages in and around Virudhunagar in Tamil Nadu. Its governing document is a scheme decree of 1946 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, passed in a suit of 1945, which provides for six managers, three Hindu and three Christian Panikkars, each serving a five-year term with mandatory elections.
That arrangement stalled in August 2021, when the appellants’ tenure ended and no election followed. Community members sued for fresh elections (O.S. No. 49 of 2023), and the Madras High Court, by orders of December 5 and 16, 2025, appointed an Election Commissioner. The appellants challenged those orders before the Supreme Court.
Which law applies
On whether the endowments Act governed the trust, the Court held:
“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.”
It further held that the Section 92 CPC decree “would prevail and govern the parties”, and that trustees whose terms expired in 2021 cannot stay on in management.
Receiver, remuneration and the High Court orders
The Court found a receiver necessary to administer, manage and preserve the trust and its properties until a duly constituted body is elected, and appointed Justice Ananthi with immediate effect. Her remuneration is to be fixed by the jurisdictional court and shall be not less than Rs 1.50 lakh per month. She may seek orders from that court as needed. The Madras High Court orders appointing an Election Commissioner stand set aside.
Why the judgment matters
A statute framed for Hindu religious and charitable trusts, the ruling confirms, cannot be stretched to institutions of mixed-faith character; for such a trust, the governing instrument is the scheme decree passed under Section 92 CPC.
It also shows the Court’s readiness to install a retired judge as receiver when elections lapse and management is left in limbo, while sending the election dispute back to the competent civil court.
Case Title: P. Jeyapandian and Another v. N. John Issac and Another [Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1606-1607 of 2026]
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2026
Appearances: M.S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate, for the appellants; P.V. Yogeswaran for the respondents