Supreme Court holds gift of temple inam property to State Government void ab initio
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court. A Division Bench comprising Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ. considered a case concerning the validity of a gift of temple inam land to the Government of Tamil Nadu by a temporary trustee. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the Madras High Court order dismissing the writ petition challenging the alienation.
The Court emphasised that property dedicated to a deity vests in the deity and is held in trust for its benefit and the community of worshippers. It 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) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court further held that the gift was incapable of valid registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as applicable to Tamil Nadu.
Can the State Government take a gift of temple inam property?
The Supreme Court held that the State Government cannot become the recipient of a gift of temple inam property from a temporary trustee of a temple. The Court held that such a gift is void ab initio under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
The issue before the Division Bench was whether the State Government, which the law requires to act as a custodian of properties belonging to religious and charitable institutions, can itself become the recipient of a gift of such property from a temporary trustee of a temple.
The Court examined the nature of temple property and the role of the State as custodian. It relied on Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt and A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court noted that Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious belief and practice, but the secular and economic administration of religious property remains subject to statutory regulation.
The Court observed that Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A and 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 seek to prevent the dissipation of temple property. It added that the State does not cease to be bound by its statutory obligations merely because it acts in its capacity as the sovereign.
The Court referred to the legal position in England and Wales, the United States and Canada. It observed that those jurisdictions subject the alienation of property belonging to religious or charitable institutions to statutory safeguards, regulatory approval or judicial oversight. The Court said those regimes recognise the State as a guardian of religious and charitable property and require external oversight.
Statutory Comparison
Provision | Position |
|---|---|
Section 34, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 | The Madras High Court held that the provision did not expressly prohibit alienation by way of gift and treated the question of applicability as a disputed question of fact. |
Section 41(1), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 | The Supreme Court held that a gift of inam property for the support and maintenance of a religious institution is void ab initio. |
The background involved a gift deed dated 30 August 2017. The temporary trustee of the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple gifted one acre and ten 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 of the 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. The High Court held 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 a monthly rent of 13,235 rupees for three years.
The Court declined 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 rupees 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.
The Court 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. The Court distinguished the position that property dedicated to a religious institution ceases to belong to the donor, trustee or the State and vests in the deity, to be held in trust for the deity and the community of worshippers.
The Court examined whether the State Government could itself become the recipient of the gift. Its reasoning turned on the effect of dedication, the trust obligations and the statutory prohibition contained in Section 41. The Court did not treat the gift as effective merely because the Revenue Department had agreed to take the land on lease. The Court therefore held that the gift could not be validly registered or acted upon.