1. A temporary trustee gifted temple land to the State without statutory sanction, leading to a challenge regarding the validity of such an alienation of religious property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1275
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE, JJ.
K. Ramalingam And Others – Appellants
Versus
Government Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its Secretary And Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 13857-13858 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 20051-20052 of 2019)
Decided On : 16-10-2026
Important Points
A gift of inam temple property is void ab initio and cannot be validated by legal sanction. Trustees must act with ordinary prudence, precluding gratuitous transfers. The State, as a statutory custodian of religious properties, cannot be the recipient of a gift of the property it protects.
Subject
Civil Law - Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.25, Art.26
REGISTRATION ACT: S.22(a)
TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT: S.34, S.41, S.23, S.27, S.28
REGISTRATION ACT: S.22(a)
TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT: S.34, S.41, S.23, S.27, S.28
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A, 41 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 22-A - Alienation of temple property - Gift of inam land to the State Government - Gift of inam property dedicated to the support of a deity is void ab initio under Section 41(1) and no sanction, however solemnly accorded, can validate it (Paras 29-30) - Registration of such a deed is without legal effect under Section 22-A of the Registration Act if no sanction from the competent authority preceded it (Para 31) - The administration of property belonging to a religious/charitable institution carries a duty of preservation, not a power of unfettered disposition (Para 2).
(B) Duties of Trustee - Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act - A trustee, whether permanent or temporary, is obliged to administer properties as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with his own affairs (Para 33) - A gift, being a transfer without consideration, cannot be characterized as an act of ordinary prudence and contradicts the fiduciary character of the trustee (Para 33).
(C) Role of State Government - State acting as a statutory custodian and regulator of temple properties cannot become the recipient of a gift of such property (Para 2, 34) - A custodian does not cease to be bound by the terms of custodianship merely because it is the sovereign (Para 25).
Facts of the case:
Land belonging to a temple was gifted by a temporary trustee to the State Government for the construction of a public office. The Gift Deed was registered without the required statutory sanction. The validity of the alienation was challenged as violating the 1959 Act. While the State initially defended the transaction before the High Court, it later conceded that the land was an inam property belonging to the temple and the gift was prohibited by law.
Findings of Court:
The subject land was determined to be inam property, making Section 41 applicable. Since Section 41(1) specifically prohibits gifts of inam property, the Gift Deed was held to be null and void. The registration of the deed was also found to be invalid under the Registration Act. However, as a public office had already been constructed using public funds, the court maintained the lease of the land but enhanced the rent to reflect fair market value.
Issues: Whether a temporary trustee has the authority to gift temple property to the State; whether a gift of inam property is valid under Section 41 of the 1959 Act; and whether the State, as a custodian, can accept a gift of religious property.
Ratio Decidendi: Gifts of inam temple property are void ab initio and cannot be validated by any authority. A trustee's fiduciary duty requires administration with ordinary prudence, which precludes gratuitous transfers. The State's role as a regulator and custodian of religious endowments is legally incompatible with being the beneficiary of a gift of the same property.
Result: Appeals allowed. High Court order set aside. Gift Deed declared null and void. Lease rent enhanced to Rs. 31,000 per month. State ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the temple.
(B) Duties of Trustee - Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act - A trustee, whether permanent or temporary, is obliged to administer properties as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with his own affairs (Para 33) - A gift, being a transfer without consideration, cannot be characterized as an act of ordinary prudence and contradicts the fiduciary character of the trustee (Para 33).
(C) Role of State Government - State acting as a statutory custodian and regulator of temple properties cannot become the recipient of a gift of such property (Para 2, 34) - A custodian does not cease to be bound by the terms of custodianship merely because it is the sovereign (Para 25).
Facts of the case:
Land belonging to a temple was gifted by a temporary trustee to the State Government for the construction of a public office. The Gift Deed was registered without the required statutory sanction. The validity of the alienation was challenged as violating the 1959 Act. While the State initially defended the transaction before the High Court, it later conceded that the land was an inam property belonging to the temple and the gift was prohibited by law.
Findings of Court:
The subject land was determined to be inam property, making Section 41 applicable. Since Section 41(1) specifically prohibits gifts of inam property, the Gift Deed was held to be null and void. The registration of the deed was also found to be invalid under the Registration Act. However, as a public office had already been constructed using public funds, the court maintained the lease of the land but enhanced the rent to reflect fair market value.
Issues: Whether a temporary trustee has the authority to gift temple property to the State; whether a gift of inam property is valid under Section 41 of the 1959 Act; and whether the State, as a custodian, can accept a gift of religious property.
Ratio Decidendi: Gifts of inam temple property are void ab initio and cannot be validated by any authority. A trustee's fiduciary duty requires administration with ordinary prudence, which precludes gratuitous transfers. The State's role as a regulator and custodian of religious endowments is legally incompatible with being the beneficiary of a gift of the same property.
Result: Appeals allowed. High Court order set aside. Gift Deed declared null and void. Lease rent enhanced to Rs. 31,000 per month. State ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the temple.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Ravi Shankar- 1393, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan- 3896, AOR Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishigesh Ks, Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran- 3845, AOR Ms. Pooja Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Muktha Rao, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Vineet Prasad, Adv. Ms. Kaveri Kuruvatti, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S. Ravi Shankar- 1393, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan- 3896, AOR Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rishigesh Ks, Adv. Mr. B. Karunakaran- 3845, AOR Ms. Pooja Lakshmi, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Anchit Singla, Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Muktha Rao, Adv. Ms. Ananya Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Vineet Prasad, Adv. Ms. Kaveri Kuruvatti, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend the gift is void for lack of statutory sanction, while the State argues for public interest in utilizing the land for government facilities. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. The court analyzed the fiduciary nature of trust property, observing that the State's role as custodian forbids arbitrary disposal or acceptance of gifted temple land. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 27 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. A gift of inam land dedicated to a deity is void ab initio without sanctioned authority, as the State acts as a regulator rather than owner of temple property. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
5. The court declared the gift deed void, upheld the lease arrangement with enhanced rent in favor of the temple, and directed strict adherence to statutory alienation procedures. (Para 41 )
6. Does a temporary trustee have the authority to gift immovable property belonging to a religious institution?
No. A trustee must manage property with ordinary prudence; a gratuitous gift confers no benefit on the institution and violates statutory requirements for Commissioner sanction under the relevant Act. (Para 33 , 34 )
7. What is the legal status of a gift of inam land meant for the support or maintenance of a religious institution?
Under the applicable legislation, a gift of such inam property is null and void ab initio, and unlike other modes of alienation, the statute provides no mechanism for its subsequent validation through government or commissioner sanction. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
8. Can the registration of a prohibited gift deed under the Registration Act be used to validate the transfer?
No. Registration cannot validate a transaction declared void by the specific statute governing the religious property in question; the registering officer is statutorily mandated to refuse such documents. (Para 31 )
9. What determines the fair lease rent for temple property being occupied by a government entity?
Fair lease rent is determined by a committee considering prevailing market rental value and market valuation of the land and structures, ensuring the institution receives adequate economic benefit. (Para 19 , 37 , 38 )
JUDGMENT :
ALOK ARADHE, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The 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.
3. These appeals emanate from the order dated 19.03.20191[W.P. No. 7075 of 2019 and W.M.P No. 7791 of 2019] passed by the High Court2[High Court of Judicature at Madras] by which the writ petition preferred by the eighth respondent (the ‘hereditary trustee’) has been dismissed.
FACTS
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are as follows. The land measuring 1 acre and 10 cents in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District, Tamil Nadu (the ‘subject land’) belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple (the ‘Temple’) and was administered by the temple trust.
5. 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 of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector and the Tehsildar, and was accepted by the Tehsildar. The stated purpose of the same was for construction of a Taluk Office on the subject land.
6. The Gift Deed was initially challenged by one M. Periyasamy and three others in W.P. No. 26913 of 2017, and subsequently by the hereditary trustee in W.P. No. 7075 of 2019, contending, inter alia, 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’), and was, therefore, void and illegal.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. On 23.03.2022, during the pendency of these appeals, the Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Tamil Nadu, filed an affidavit before this Court. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of that affidavit, being of some significance, are extracted below:
- “6. I most respectfully submit that since, the property involved is an INAM Land granted to the deity for its support and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388, only section 41 of the said Act would come into play which prohibits gift/settlement of such lands as null and void. Further I submit that section 34(5) of the said Act also makes it clear that Section 34 of the said Act would not apply to inam lands. The reason for prohibiting gift/settlement is to protect the properties of the deities from being alienated permanently without any benefit accruing to the deities.”
“7. I am advised to state that a meeting was convened in this regard on 04-02-2022 by the High Level Committee with the Chief Secretary to Government as Cha
