The Supreme Court clarified that gifts of inam land dedicated to temple deities are void ab initio under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as no statutory sanction can validate such transfers, reinforcing the State's custodial role over religious property.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The subject land measuring 1 acre and 10 cents in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District, Tamil Nadu belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple (the ‘Temple’) and was administered by the temple trust. The land was held as inam property granted for the support and maintenance of the deity under Inam Title Deed No. 388.
Key Facts
- On 30.08.2017, the Tehsildar issued a certificate stating that Mr. S. Bhoopathy was the trustee of the Temple for the purpose of registration of a deed in the Sub-Registrar’s Office
- On the same date (30.08.2017), the temporary trustee executed a Gift Deed transferring the subject land to the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector and Tehsildar, for construction of a Taluk Office
- The Gift Deed was initially challenged by M. Periyasamy and three others in W.P. No. 26913 of 2017, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 07.03.2018
- The hereditary trustee filed W.P. No. 7075 of 2019 contending that the alienation of trust property by way of gift violated Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the ‘1959 Act’)
- On 23.03.2022, during the pendency of the appeals, the Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Tamil Nadu filed an affidavit stating that the property involved is an INAM Land granted to the deity under Inam Title Deed No. 388, so only Section 41 of the 1959 Act applies, and Section 34(5) expressly excludes inam lands from Section 34’s operation
- The affidavit further stated that a High Level Committee meeting on 04.02.2022 decided to cancel the gift settlement deed, take the land on lease/rent, and fix a fair lease rent of Rs. 13,235/- per month for three years
Procedural History
- 07.03.2018: W.P. No. 26913 of 2017 (villagers’ challenge) dismissed as withdrawn
- 19.03.2019: High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed W.P. No. 7075 of 2019 (hereditary trustee’s petition), holding Section 34 does not mention ‘gift/settlement’ and whether the land falls under the 1959 Act is a disputed question of fact
- 19.08.2019: Appellants (devotees of the Temple) granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions against the High Court judgment
- 23.03.2022: Principal Secretary filed affidavit before Supreme Court detailing INAM land status and High Level Committee’s decision
- 21.02.2022: Supreme Court issued order requiring the Secretary in charge of Endowments to clarify on affidavit whether a trustee can gift away temple property
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants (Devotees): The subject land is admittedly the property of the Temple; a temporary trustee has no authority to alienate it; the gift made without sanction under Section 34 of the 1959 Act is null and void; its registration is barred by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu); any rent payable ought to be fixed with reference to market value.
For the Respondents (State): The temporary trustee is the hereditary trustee of the Temple; the land was transferred to the Government in public interest for Taluk Office construction pursuant to a unanimous decision of devotees and villagers; Section 34 of the 1959 Act does not in terms mention a gift, so the transaction is not rendered unlawful by that provision.
For the State (Additional Advocate General): The subject land belongs to the Temple and the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 cannot be sustained; however, a Taluk Office building has been constructed on the land out of public funds serving a genuine public need.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought: (i) declaration that the subject land is inam property belonging to the Temple; (ii) declaration that the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 is null and void; (iii) direction for the State to pay enhanced lease rent and arrears; (iv) payment of costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the gift of inam land dedicated to a temple deity falls under Section 34 or Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and whether such a gift is void ab initio due to the absence of statutory sanction.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants relied on the affidavit dated 23.03.2022 to assert that the subject land is inam property under Inam Title Deed No. 388, invoking Section 41(5) of the 1959 Act which expressly excludes inam lands from Section 34’s operation. They argued that Section 41(1) declares any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage of inam property null and void, and Section 41(2) permits the Government to sanction only non-gift transactions as necessary or beneficial to the institution. Consequently, a gift of inam property cannot be validated by any sanction, rendering it void ab initio. They further contended that the Gift Deed failed to comply with Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu) as no sanction preceded registration, and that the State’s belated concession in 2022 does not cure the initial illegality.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through its counsel, maintained that the temporary trustee was the hereditary trustee and the land transfer served public interest for Taluk Office construction. It argued that Section 34 of the 1959 Act does not expressly mention ‘gift’ in its prohibitory clause, so the transaction is not unlawful under that provision. The State also emphasized that the constructed Taluk Office serves a genuine administrative need and urged the Court not to disturb the lease arrangement despite the flawed gift deed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first determined the character of the subject land, holding it to be inam property based on the Principal Secretary’s affidavit dated 23.03.2022 stating it was granted under Inam Title Deed No. 388 for the deity’s support and maintenance. It concluded that Section 41 of the 1959 Act, not Section 34, governs the transaction due to Section 41(5)’s express exclusion of inam lands from Section 34’s operation.
The Court then analyzed Section 41(1), which declares “any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of the whole or any portion of any inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution… shall be null and void.” It contrasted this with Section 41(2), which allows the Government to sanction only “any transaction of the nature aforesaid (not being a gift)” as necessary or beneficial to the institution. The Court observed that the Legislature consciously withheld from a gift of inam property the very possibility of subsequent validation by the Commissioner or Government, stating:
"A gift of an inam property dedicated to the support of a deity is, in consequence, void ab initio and no sanction, however solemnly accorded, could have breathed life into it."
Applying this principle, the Court held the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 null and void under Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act. It further found the deed incapable of valid registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu) as no sanction preceded registration, and being a gift of inam property, no such sanction could have been granted. The Court rejected the State’s argument that Section 34’s silence on ‘gift’ validates the transaction, noting that even if the land fell under Section 34 (which it does not), the absence of Commissioner’s sanction and prior Government approval would still render the gift void.
Regarding the State’s conduct, the Court noted that despite knowing the land belonged to the Temple (as asserted in W.P. No. 26913 of 2017), the Revenue Department mutated the land in its name, reclassified it as ‘Sarkar Poramboke,’ and constructed a Taluk Office. The State persisted in defending the gift until the Supreme Court’s order dated 21.02.2022 compelled clarification, after which it conceded the land belongs to the Temple and can only be held as a lessee. The Court criticized this belated concession, stating:
"The State abandoned the gift only after this Court, by its order dated 21.02.2022, required the Secretary in charge of Endowments to clarify on affidavit whether a trustee can gift away temple property. It was then that the State accepted that the lands belong to the Temple, that a gift of such lands is prohibited by Section 41 of the 1959 Act, and that the Revenue Department could hold them only as a lessee. A department of the State, which is the statutory custodian of temple properties, ought to have recognised this position at the threshold."
On the lease arrangement, the Court declined to annul the lease given the constructed Taluk Office serving public needs. It enhanced the rent from Rs. 13,235/- to Rs. 31,000/- per month with effect from 08.03.2019 (the date the land was handed over for construction), applying the Fair Rent Committee’s formula of 0.1% on the total value (land at Rs. 167/- per sq ft enhanced to 225% under G.O. (MS) No. 200 dated 02.11.2018, plus depreciated building value). The Court directed that arrears of rent from 08.03.2019 till date be paid within three months, and that the lease rent be re-fixed once every three years under Section 34-A but not below the enhanced amount, with the Temple trust retaining power to determine terms on renewal.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded in their core contention. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 19.03.2019 and declared the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 executed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu null and void under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It directed that the lease in favour of the Government shall not be annulled; if expired, it shall be renewed with rent enhanced to Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand only) per month with effect from 08.03.2019, the date the subject land was handed over for construction. 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 the judgment date. The State was directed to pay costs quantified at Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) within a period of eight weeks to the Temple. The respondent-authorities were henceforth directed to strictly comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act before effecting any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of property belonging to religious institutions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inam Property Governed by Section 41, Not Section 34
Practitioners must first ascertain whether temple property is classified as inam under Section 41 of the relevant State HRCE Act before challenging alienation. If the property is inam land (granted for deity’s support/maintenance), Section 41 applies exclusively, and Section 34 is inapplicable due to its express exclusion clause (Section 41(5)). This threshold determination dictates the validity of transactions: gifts of inam property are void ab initio under Section 41(1), while Section 34 governs only non-gift alienations requiring Commissioner’s sanction.
Gift of Inam Property Void Ab Initio
A gift of inam land dedicated to a deity cannot be validated by any subsequent sanction, statutory or administrative. Lawyers advising temple trusts or devotees must emphasize that such gifts are null and void from inception, rendering registration ineffective and barring any claim of bona fide purchase. The State’s role as custodian under Sections 23 and 34 prohibits it from accepting such gifts, and any defense of the transaction on public interest grounds is untenable where the property is inam.
State as Custodian Cannot Unilaterally Alienate Temple Property
The judgment reinforces that the State, as statutory custodian of temple property under HRCE legislation, must prioritize the trust’s benefit over administrative convenience. Before effecting any alienation (exchange, sale, mortgage, lease), the State must strictly comply with procedural requirements: publication inviting objections, Commissioner’s sanction deeming the transaction necessary/beneficial, and prior Government approval. Temple trusts retain authority to determine lease terms on renewal, including rent, based on prevailing market value and the institution’s best interest.
