The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has refused bail and anticipatory bail to 15 people accused in the alleged illegal transfer and registration of 1.79 acres of valuable land in Madurai.
The disputed property is reportedly worth around ₹60 crore and is linked to the Pudukkottai Rajakumarar Dakshanamoorthy Durairaja Durairani Trust.
The Property Under Dispute
The property reportedly includes the Ashoka Vilas bungalow and its adjoining garden at Chokkikulam, near Alagarkoil Road in Madurai.
According to the temple administration, a will executed by T.M. Durairani on November 5, 1930, created a charitable arrangement connected with the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple and Alagar Temple.
The income from the property was reportedly meant to support religious services, charity and scholarships. The temple authorities claim that the property could be leased but could not be sold, mortgaged or permanently transferred.
How Was the Patta Allegedly Changed?
According to the police, the temple or trust’s name was allegedly removed from the revenue records on June 24, 2016.
K. Anbalagan, who was then the Madurai North Tahsildar, allegedly transferred the patta to nine private individuals.
The Revenue Divisional Officer later cancelled the disputed transfer and reportedly directed that the patta be restored. Court proceedings concerning the property were also pending.
Power of Attorney and Mortgage Registered in 2021
Despite the cancellation and pending dispute, a General Power of Attorney was allegedly registered at the Murappanadu Sub-Registrar’s Office in Thoothukudi district on April 16, 2021.
Using that document, a mortgage deed was reportedly registered at the Vadamadurai Sub-Registrar’s Office in Dindigul district on July 19, 2021.
Police allege that important facts about the cancellation, ownership dispute and court proceedings were concealed while registering these documents.
Nineteen Booked and Six Arrested
The Madurai City Central Crime Branch registered the case on July 25, 2026, following a complaint from the temple’s Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer.
A total of 19 people, including former revenue officials, registration officials and private individuals, were booked.
Six people have reportedly been arrested, including former Tahsildar K. Anbalagan and former Murappanadu Sub-Registrar Anantharaman.
On August 25, the Madurai Bench dismissed bail petitions filed by two arrested accused and anticipatory-bail petitions filed by 13 others.
Defence’s Arguments in the Madurai Temple Land Dispute
The accused have disputed the temple’s ownership claim.
They reportedly argued that the property was purchased by Pudukkottai Prince Dakshinamurthy Durairaja in 1912 and remained with his legal heirs.
They claimed that the 1930 Will only required the income from the property to be used for temple and charitable purposes. According to them, ownership of the land itself was never transferred to the temple.
They also claimed that the temple’s name entered the revenue records because of an error and that later revenue orders restored the property to the original owner’s name.
The ownership question has not been finally decided. The rejection of bail does not prove that the accused are guilty or settle who legally owns the property.
What Property Buyers Must Learn from This Case
A property may have a patta, registered sale document, power of attorney and even a registered mortgage. Yet these records do not automatically prove that the person transferring the property had a valid and unrestricted title.
A registered document records a transaction. It does not cure a defective ownership history.
Before purchasing land, buyers should trace the parent documents far enough to determine whether the property was previously:
- Endowed to a temple or religious institution
- Owned by a trust or Mutt
- Reserved for charitable purposes
- Restricted from being sold or mortgaged
- Involved in earlier cancellation or court proceedings
Why Recent Documents Are Not Enough
Checking only the latest sale deed, patta and Encumbrance Certificate can leave serious gaps.
The parent-document chain must be compared with revenue records, registration records, court cases, trust documents and applicable restrictions. Any unexplained change from temple or trust ownership to private ownership should be treated as a major warning sign.rty.
Final Takeaway
A property can have a patta, registered power of attorney and mortgage and still face a serious ownership dispute.
Buyers should never rely only on recent documents. The title must be traced back far enough to understand how the property originally came into private ownership and whether any older will, trust or endowment restricts its sale.
Disclaimer: This article is based on police allegations, court proceedings and published news reports. The accused have denied wrongdoing, and the ownership dispute has not been finally decided. Rejection of bail does not amount to a finding of guilt. This article is for general awareness and does not constitute legal advice.