State cannot accept temple land as a gift; Supreme Court voids transfer and raises rent payable to temple

The disputed 1 acre and 10 cents in Kodumudi Village belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple.

On 30 August 2017, a temporary trustee executed a registered gift deed transferring the land to the State of Tamil Nadu for construction of a Taluk Office.

A hereditary trustee challenged the deed, but the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (“1959 Act”) did not expressly prohibit gifts and that title was disputed.

Devotees appealed.

During the appeal, the State acknowledged that the land was an inam granted to the deity and that Section 41 of the 1959 Act applied; it proposed instead that the State hold the land on lease.

Whether the temple’s inam land could validly be gifted to the State by a temporary trustee, and whether the gift and its registration were legally effective

Whether the State could continue to occupy the land for the Taluk Office, and what rent and terms should govern that occupation

Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act declares an exchange, gift, sale or mortgage of an inam granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution null and void; unlike other specified transactions, a gift cannot be sanctioned.

Section 34(5) excludes inams covered by Section 41 from Section 34, which otherwise requires the Commissioner’s sanction, preceded by prescribed publication and objections and the Government’s prior approval, for specified alienations.

Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, bars registration of specified transfers of religious-institution property without competent-authority sanction.

Sections 23, 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act establish supervisory control and require trustees to obey lawful orders and administer institutional property with ordinary prudence.

Section 34-A requires lease rent to be fixed with regard to prevailing market rental value and refixed every three years.

The Court also relied on Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh for the distinction between protected religious practice and regulable secular administration of religious property.

The State’s affidavit identified the land as an inam granted to the deity, bringing the transaction under Section 41 rather than Section 34.

Section 41 expressly includes gifts among prohibited transactions and permits sanction only for transactions “not being a gift”; the deed was therefore void from the outset and incapable of validation.

Registration could not cure that defect, and no competent-authority sanction had preceded it.

The Court added that, even if Section 34 governed, the absence of the required sanction and approvals would invalidate the gift.

The temporary trustee’s authority was constrained by fiduciary duties, and the State, as custodian and regulator, could not accept temple property as a gratuitous transfer.

Because a Taluk Office had already been built and served a public need, the Court preserved the State’s occupation through a lease, but recalculated rent using the stated valuation formula and required future rent and renewals to be determined in the temple’s interest.

It declared the 30 August 2017 gift deed null and void under Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act and its registration of no legal effect under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.

The State’s lease was not annulled; rent was fixed at ₹31,000 per month from 8 March 2019, subject to refixation at least every three years and not below that amount, with arrears payable within three months.

The lease’s renewal and terms must be determined in accordance with the 1959 Act, with the Temple’s benefit paramount.

The State was also directed to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs to the Temple and to comply with the statutory procedures governing religious-institution property.