In a landmark decision reaffirming the legal protection of temple deities and their properties, the Supreme Court of India held that any gift of inam land belonging to a religious institution is null and void under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE) Act, 1959.
A Division Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said that the Tamil Nadu government is only a custodian of such properties and has no authority to accept them as gifts, even for a public cause such as constructing a taluk office. The legislature has consciously barred any validation of gifts of inam property, making such transactions void from the beginning.
While hearing a petition filed by K. Ramalingam and others against the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, and others, the Division Bench of the apex court, in a 31-page order dated October 16, 2026, said: “Administration of property … belonging to a religious/charitable institution carries with it a duty of preservation, not a power of unfettered disposition. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals, stated at its simplest, is whether the State Government, which the law requires to act as a custodian of the properties belonging to religious/charitable institutions, can itself become the recipient of a gift of such property from a temporary trustee of a temple. These appeals emanate from the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the High Court, by which the writ petition preferred by the eighth respondent (the ‘hereditary trustee’) has been dismissed.”
The case stems from a gift deed executed on August 30, 2017, by a temporary trustee of the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Kodumudi village, Erode district. The land, measuring 1 acre and 10 cents in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi village, was temple inam land gifted to the Tamil Nadu government for the construction of a taluk office. The hereditary trustee challenged the transaction.
The Madras High Court had dismissed the petition in March 2019, saying that the gift was not expressly prohibited under Section 34 of the Act. Devotees of the temple then approached the Supreme Court. The apex court set aside the High Court order, declaring the gift deed null and void and of no legal effect, emphasising that a trustee has a fiduciary duty to manage temple property with ordinary prudence and lacks the power to alienate it by way of a gratuitous gift. It rejected the Tamil Nadu government’s argument that the land could be retained because a taluk office had already been built with public funds.
The court said: “On 30.08.2017, the Tehsildar issued a certificate stating that the seventh respondent, one Mr S. Bhoopathy (the ‘temporary trustee’), is the trustee of the Temple, the certificate being issued for the purpose of registration of a deed in the Sub-Registrar’s Office. By a Gift Deed of the same date, the temporary trustee of the Temple gifted the subject land to the Government, represented by the District Collector, and the gift was accepted by the Tehsildar.”
The Bench said: “The writ petition preferred by the villagers was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2018. In the writ petition filed by the hereditary trustee, the High Court, by an order dated 19.03.2019, held that the word ‘gift/settlement’ does not appear in Section 34 of the 1959 Act and that alienation by way of gift was, on that account, not prohibited. It was further held that whether the subject land fell within the ambit of the 1959 Act at all was a disputed question of fact unsuited to writ adjudication. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the hereditary trustee to file a suit for declaration of title. The hereditary trustee did not pursue the matter further. On 19.08.2019, the appellants, who are devotees of the Temple, were granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of the High Court.”
On March 23, 2022, during the pendency of the case, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Tourism, Culture and HR and CE Department, filed an affidavit before the court. The stand thus taken by the State leaves no doubt that the Temple is the owner of the subject land.
Counsel for the appellants, S. Ravi Shankar, submitted that the subject land is admittedly the property of the Temple. He contended that a temporary trustee has no authority to alienate it and that the gift, made without sanction under Section 34 of the 1959 Act, is null and void; that its registration is, in any event, barred by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu; and that any rent payable in respect of the land ought to be fixed with reference to its market value.
K.L. Janjani, counsel for the temporary trustee, argued that respondent No. 7, the temporary trustee, is the hereditary trustee of the Temple, saying that the land was transferred to the Government in the public interest, for the construction of a taluk office, pursuant to a unanimous decision of the devotees and villagers. He submitted that, since Section 34 of the 1959 Act does not expressly mention a gift, the transaction is not rendered unlawful by that provision.
The Bench said that the Additional Advocate General and the senior counsel for the HR and CE Department fairly did not dispute that the subject land belongs to the Temple or that the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 cannot be sustained. It was urged, however, that a taluk office building had since been constructed on the land using public funds and served a genuine public need.
Shailesh Madiyal, amicus curiae, submitted that any alienation of property belonging to a religious institution must satisfy the restrictions in Section 34 of the 1959 Act, including the sanction of the Commissioner upon a finding that the alienation is necessary or beneficial to the institution. He contended that the State’s own affidavit admits that the land belongs to the Temple, and there is no material on record to show that either the procedure under Section 34 of the 1959 Act or that under Section 41 of the 1959 Act has been followed.
The Bench said: “It was urged that a gift, being without consideration, cannot by its very nature be said to be necessary or beneficial to the donor institution, and that a gift of temple land to the Government defeats the very object of the supervisory role assigned to the Commissioner under Sections 23 and 34 of the 1959 Act.”
In its conclusion, the Bench said: “The lease in favour of the Government shall not be annulled. If the lease has expired, it shall be renewed. In either event, the lease rent shall stand enhanced to Rs. 31,000/- with effect from 08.03.2019, the date on which the subject land was handed over for construction. The rent shall be re-fixed once in three years under Section 34-A of the 1959 Act, but not below that amount. The period of the lease, its renewal and the remaining terms shall be determined by the trust of the Temple, in accordance with the 1959 Act, with the benefit of the Temple as the paramount consideration.”
The court said: “The arrears of rent from 08.03.2019 till date, after adjusting any amount already paid, shall be paid by the State to the Temple within three months from today… The respondent-authorities shall, henceforth, strictly comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act, as directed in paragraph 40 above.”
