Supreme Court: In a case concerning the validity of a gift of temple inam land to the Government of Tamil Nadu by a temporary trustee, a Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe*, JJ., allowed the appeals and set aside the Madras High Court’s judgment dismissing the writ petition challenging the alienation. Emphasising that property dedicated to a deity vests in the deity and is held in trust for its benefit and the community of worshippers, the Court held that a gift of inam property granted for the support and maintenance of a religious institution is null and void ab initio under Section 41(1), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and was incapable of valid registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable to Tamil Nadu..
The Court further held that the State, as custodian and regulator of temple property, cannot acquire such property through a gratuitous transfer or permit its officers to usurp property entrusted to its protection. While declining to annul the lease in favour of the State Government on account of the construction of a Taluk Office on the subject land, the Court enhanced the monthly rent to ₹31,000 with effect from 8 March 2019, directed payment of arrears and costs, and emphasised that all decisions concerning religious and charitable property must be guided by the best interests of the institution and not by the administrative convenience of the Government.
Background
The dispute arose from the execution of a gift deed dated 30 August 2017, whereby the temporary trustee of Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple gifted 1 acre and 10 cents of temple land to the Government of Tamil Nadu for construction of a Taluk Office. The gift deed was challenged on the ground that the alienation of temple property by way of gift was in violation of Section 34, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and was, therefore, void and illegal.
The Madras High Court, by order dated 19 March 2019, dismissed the writ petition filed by the hereditary trustee, holding that Section 34 did not expressly prohibit alienation by way of gift and that the question of applicability of the 1959 Act involved disputed questions of fact. The High Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the hereditary trustee to file a suit for declaration of title. The hereditary trustee did not pursue the matter further; the appellants, devotees of the Temple, were granted permission on 19 August 2019 to file special leave petitions. In an affidavit dated 23 March 2022, the State stated that the land was inam land granted to the deity, that Section 41 prohibited its gift, and that the Revenue Department had agreed to take it on lease at ₹13,235 per month, as fixed by a Fair Rent Committee for three years.
Issue
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.
Analysis
Nature of temple property and the State’s role as custodian
The Court observed that properties dedicated to religious institutions cease to belong to the donor, trustee or the State and vest in the deity, to be held in trust for the deity and the community of worshippers. Relying on HRCEC, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412, and A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548, the Court reiterated that although Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious belief and practice, the secular and economic administration of religious property remains subject to statutory regulation. It observed that Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act seek to prevent the dissipation of temple property, and that the State does not cease to be bound by its statutory obligations merely because it acts in its capacity as the sovereign.
Position of law with respect to alienation of properties belonging to religious or charitable trusts in other jurisdictions
The Court referred to the legal position in England and Wales, the United States and Canada, where the alienation of property belonging to religious or charitable institutions is subject to statutory safeguards, regulatory approval or judicial oversight. It observed that these legal regimes recognise the State’s role as a guardian of religious and charitable property, requiring external oversight rather than leaving such property to the unrestricted discretion of trustees.
A. THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT LAND AND THE VALIDITY OF THE GIFT
The Court held that the subject land was an inam granted to the deity for its support and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388. On the State’s own affidavit that the land was inam land, and as Section 34(5) excludes the inams referred to in Section 41 from Section 34, the Court held that Section 41, and not Section 34, governed the transaction. Since Section 41(1) prohibits a gift of such property and does not permit its subsequent validation, the gift deed dated 30 August 2017 was declared null and void ab initio. The Court further held that the deed was incapable of valid registration under Section 22-A, Registration Act, 1908, and that registration could not cure the invalidity. Even assuming that Section 34 applied, the gift would remain void for want of the requisite prior sanction. The Court emphasised that every trustee, whether permanent or temporary, was bound under Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act to administer temple property with ordinary prudence and in the best interests of the institution. A gratuitous transfer of temple property was inconsistent with the fiduciary obligations of a trustee.
B. CONDUCT OF THE STATE
The Court noted with concern the State’s conduct in mutating the revenue records, reclassifying the subject land as “Sarkar Poramboke” and proceeding with construction despite the Endowments Department’s assertion that the property belonged to the deity. It noted that the State continued to defend the transaction even before the Supreme Court and abandoned its stand only after this Court sought clarification regarding the authority of a trustee to gift temple property. The Court observed that the State’s belated concession could not obscure the fact that the temple had been deprived of its property for over 4 years on the strength of a deed which was void in law.
C. DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT
Considering that a Taluk Office had already been constructed on the subject land, the Court declined to set aside the lease in favour of the State Government. However, having regard to the temple’s wrongful deprivation of the use of its property, the Court recalculated the fair rent by applying the prescribed formula and the valuation principles under G.O. (Ms.) No. 200 dated 2 November 2018. Taking the market value of the land at ₹167 per square foot, applying 225 per cent thereof and adding the depreciated value of the building, the Court enhanced the monthly rent from ₹13,235 to ₹31,000, payable with effect from 8 March 2019. It further held that the trust, acting through its trustee or the Fit Person, in consultation with the Committee empanelled for the purpose, would retain control over the terms and conditions of the lease, including the quantum of rent. Any renewal would require a fresh determination of fair rent and would not be granted as a matter of course.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated 19 March 2019 passed by the High Court, issuing the following directions:
-
The land situated in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District, was declared to be inam property belonging to and vested in the temple.
-
The gift deed dated 30 August 2017 executed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu was declared null and void under Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act. Its registration, being contrary to Section 22-A, Registration Act, 1908, was held to be of no legal effect.
-
The Court declined to annul the lease in favour of the State Government. The monthly rent was enhanced to ₹31,000, with effect from 8 March 2019. The rent shall be refixed once in 3 years under Section 34-A of the 1959 Act, but shall not be below the enhanced amount. The period of lease, its renewal and the remaining terms shall be determined by the temple trust in accordance with the 1959 Act, keeping the benefit of the temple as the paramount consideration.
-
The State was directed to pay the arrears of rent from 8 March 2019, after adjusting any amount already paid, within 3 months.
-
In view of the State’s conduct in accepting the gift of temple property and continuing to defend the transaction before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the State was directed to pay costs of ₹ 1,00,000 to the temple within 8 weeks.
The Court further issued the following general directions:
-
The State Government, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the respondent-authorities shall, henceforth, strictly comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, before effecting or sanctioning any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution.
-
Every decision concerning the property of a religious or charitable institution must be guided solely by the best interests and benefit of the trust, and never by the administrative convenience of the Government.
-
The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, or permit its officers to usurp, the property of the religious or charitable institutions it is charged to protect. A transaction that offends this principle, whatever its label or ostensible public purpose, is liable to be struck down.
The appeals were accordingly allowed, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
[K. Ramalingam v. State of T.N., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2195, decided on 16-10-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Haripriya Padmanabhan, Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, senior counsel, K.L. Janjani, Advocate
Amicus Curiae: Shailesh Madiyal
