The Supreme Court has held that a gift of temple inam land is void from the outset under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and that no authority, the Commissioner or the Government, can subsequently validate it. The Court asserted that the legislature consciously excluded gifts from the class of transactions capable of sanction.
Section 41(1) declares any exchange, gift, sale, or mortgage of inam property null and void, but permits the Government to sanction only transactions ‘not being a gift’. That carve-out is deliberate, as a gift provides no consideration and therefore no benefit to the institution. The Court held that the gift deed’s registration contravened Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, and that registration under one statute cannot validate what the governing statute declares void.
The Government, acting through the Endowments Department, is a custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner. Accepting a gratuitous gift of temple land, even for a laudable public purpose such as constructing a Taluk Office, is inconsistent with that fiduciary duty, added the Court.
Briefly, the dispute concerned land belonging to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Kodumudi Village, Tamil Nadu. On 30 August 2017, a temporary trustee executed a gift deed transferring the land to the State Government for construction of a Taluk Office. The Madras High Court dismissed the hereditary trustee’s challenge, reasoning that Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 did not expressly mention gifts and that the land’s statutory status involved disputed facts.
Temple devotees then approached the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the State admitted that the property was temple inam land, that the gift was prohibited under Section 41, and that the Revenue Department should instead hold it on lease.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha emphasised that the State is a custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner. Accordingly, a public purpose, however laudable, cannot justify accepting temple land as a gratuitous gift. Trustees, whether permanent or temporary, must administer the institution’s property prudently and consistently with their fiduciary duties, and gifting it without consideration provides no corresponding benefit to the institution.
The Court also criticised the State for defending the transfer despite the Endowments Department having asserted that the land belonged to the deity and that the executant lacked authority to convey it. However, because a Taluk Office had already been constructed with public funds and served administrative needs, the Court declined to annul the lease, while holding that its terms must protect the Temple’s interests.
The Court clarified that Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, rather than Section 34, governed the transaction because the land was an inam granted for the deity’s support and maintenance, and Section 34(5) expressly excludes such inams. Under Section 41(1), a gift of this property is void from the outset, unlike certain other transactions, a gift cannot be sanctioned or subsequently validated by the Government.
Its registration was also contrary to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu. Registration cannot validate a transaction that the law governing the property declares void. The State’s custodial role does not permit it to appropriate temple property merely because the transfer serves a public purpose, added the Court.
