Supreme Court on Gift of Temple Inam Land: Void Ab Initio Under Section 41 HR&CE Act – K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu [2026 INSC 1144]

In K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (2026 INSC 1144), the Supreme Court held that a gift of temple inam land is void ab initio under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. It allowed the devotees' appeals and declared void a 2017 gift deed by which a temporary trustee transferred 1 acre 10 cents of the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple's land at Kodumudi, Erode, to the State for a Taluk Office (paras 4–5, 29–30, 41). The Court ruled that the State is only a custodian of temple property, not its owner (paras 34, 40). As the office already stands on the land, the State will continue as lessee at Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019, with Rs. 1 lakh costs (paras 37–38, 41).

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A, 41 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 22-A (Tamil Nadu) – Temple inam land – Gift by trustee to State – Void ab initio – State as custodian – Fair rent.

Held: (i) Temple property vests in the deity; every custodian, including the State, holds it in trust (paras 23, 25).

(ii) Land granted as inam to the deity is governed by Section 41, not Section 34 (para 28).

(iii) Section 41(1) allows sanction only for transactions "not being a gift"; a gift of inam land is void ab initio and cannot be validated (paras 29–30).

(iv) Registration cannot cure a void transfer, and the deed was not registrable under Section 22-A (para 31).

(v) A gift is never an act of ordinary prudence by a trustee under Sections 27 and 28, whether permanent or temporary (para 33).

(vi) The State is a regulator and custodian of temple property and cannot appropriate it, whatever the public purpose (paras 34, 40).

(paras 23–41)

Judgment Intelligence

Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; 2017 gift deed declared void; land declared temple inam property; State to continue as lessee at Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019; costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the Temple.

Case: K. Ramalingam & Ors. v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1144

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13857–13858 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20051–20052 of 2019)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 16 October 2026

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe

Relevant Acts & Sections: Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 – Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A, 41; Registration Act, 1908 – Section 22-A (as applicable in Tamil Nadu)

Impugned Order: Judgment of the Madras High Court (2019) dismissing the hereditary trustee's writ petition

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings

• A gift of inam land belonging to a temple is prohibited by Section 41(1) and is void from inception (paras 29–30).
• The High Court erred in testing the transfer only under Section 34 (paras 7, 28).
• Even under Section 34, the gift would fail for want of sanction (para 32).
• Registration does not validate a transaction that the statute forbids (para 31).
• No trustee – hereditary, permanent or temporary – can gift temple property (para 33).
• Public purpose does not entitle the State to take temple property without lawful means (paras 34, 40).

Brief Facts

The Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple owned 1 acre 10 cents of inam land at Kodumudi village, Erode district (para 4).

On 30.08.2017, a temporary trustee executed a gift deed of the land in favour of the State for a Taluk Office. The Tehsildar accepted the gift (para 5).

In 2019, the Madras High Court dismissed the hereditary trustee's writ petition, reasoning that Section 34 does not refer to gifts (para 7). Devotees appealed to the Supreme Court (para 8).

In 2022, the State filed an affidavit accepting that the land was inam granted to the deity, that Section 41 prohibited its gift, and offering to take it on lease at Rs. 13,235 per month (para 9).

Issues (paras 28–38)

1. Whether Section 34 or Section 41 governs the transfer of the land (para 28).
2. Whether a gift of inam land is permissible under Section 41(1) (paras 29–30).
3. Whether registration under Section 22-A could validate the gift deed (para 31).
4. Whether the gift could be sustained under Section 34 (para 32).
5. Whether a trustee's gift is an act of ordinary prudence under Sections 27 and 28 (para 33).
6. What is the State's status vis-à-vis temple property, and what follows for its occupation and rent (paras 34–38, 40).

Court's Findings

Temple property and constitutional context (paras 23–25): Relying on Shirur Mutt and A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu, the Court noted that the secular administration of temple property can be regulated. But regulation means protection. The property vests in the deity, and all custodians, including the State, hold it in trust (paras 23–25).

Section 41 governs (para 28): Since the land is inam granted to the deity, Section 41 – the specific provision for such lands – applies, not the general provision in Section 34 (para 28).

Gift is void ab initio (paras 29–30): Section 41(1) permits sanction for transfers "not being a gift". A gift is therefore outside any power of sanction. Such a deed is void from the start, and nothing can validate it (paras 29–30).

Registration no cure (para 31): The deed should not have been registered under Section 22-A of the Registration Act as applicable in Tamil Nadu. In any case, registration cannot give life to a void transfer (para 31).

Section 34 also not satisfied (para 32): Even if Section 34 applied, no sanction was obtained. The gift would fail on that ground too (para 32).

Trustee's powers (para 33): Sections 27 and 28 require trustees to act with the prudence of a person dealing with his own property. Gifting away the deity's land is never such an act. The rule binds temporary trustees equally (para 33).

State as custodian (paras 34–36, 40): The State is a regulator, not an owner. It defended the invalid gift for over four years and conceded only when the Court called for an affidavit. Such conduct was viewed seriously (paras 34–36, 40).

Rent and occupation (paras 37–38): As a Taluk Office now stands on the land, the Court allowed the State to continue as lessee. Rent was fixed under the Fair Rent Committee formula at Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019, instead of the Rs. 13,235 offered (paras 37–38).

Final Outcome / Directions (para 41)

• Appeals allowed; the land declared inam property of the Temple.
• Gift deed dated 30.08.2017 declared void.
• State to continue as lessee at Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019.
• Rent to be revised every three years and never reduced.
• Arrears to be paid within three months.
• Costs of Rs. 1 lakh payable by the State to the Temple.

Legal Principle

Property endowed to a Hindu deity vests in the deity, and trustees, the HR&CE department and the State hold it only as custodians. Under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, inam land of a religious institution cannot be gifted; any such gift is void ab initio and cannot be validated by sanction or registration. Gifting temple property is never an act of ordinary prudence by any trustee. The State, even for a public purpose, cannot acquire temple property by gift and must pay fair, periodically revised rent for its occupation.

Precedents Relied Upon

• Commissioner, HRE, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412 – Relied upon – secular administration of religious property can be regulated. Discussed at para 24.
• A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 9 SCC 548 – Relied upon – administration of temple property is a secular function. Discussed at para 24.
• Edukanti Kistamma v. S. Venkatareddy, (2010) 1 SCC 756 – Referred – restrictions on alienation of religious property (cited by amicus). Discussed at para 14.
• A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482 – Referred – duty to protect temple property (cited by amicus). Discussed at para 14.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Para-wise summary. For the exact words, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Paras 23–25: Temple wealth belongs to the deity, and every custodian, including the State, holds it in trust.

Paras 29–30: Section 41(1) excludes gifts from sanction; the gift of inam land is void ab initio.

Para 33: A gift is never an act of ordinary prudence for any trustee, permanent or temporary.

Paras 34–36: The State is custodian, not owner, and its prolonged defence of the gift deserves disapproval.

Para 41: Gift deed void; lease at Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019, revised every three years; Rs. 1 lakh costs.

What the Ruling Means: Practical Impact

• For temples and devotees: Devotees can challenge alienation of temple land, and gifts of inam land are void (paras 8, 29–30).
• For trustees: No trustee, including a temporary one, may gift temple property (para 33).
• For State governments: Public offices on temple land must be held on lawful lease with fair, rising rent (paras 37–38, 41).
• For Sub-Registrars: Deeds transferring temple property in breach of the HR&CE Act should not be registered (para 31).
• For HR&CE authorities: Their role is to protect, not dispose of, temple property (paras 23–25, 34).

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu?

It declared void a 2017 gift of temple inam land to the State and held the land belongs to the Temple. The State may stay as lessee at Rs. 31,000 per month (paras 29–30, 41).

2. Can temple inam land be gifted to the government?

No. Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act excludes gifts, so such a gift is void ab initio (paras 29–30).

3. Does registration validate a gift of temple property?

No. Registration cannot cure a transfer that the statute prohibits (para 31).

4. Can a temporary trustee transfer temple land?

No trustee, permanent or temporary, can gift temple property. It is never an act of ordinary prudence under Sections 27 and 28 (para 33).

5. What rent must the State pay for the Taluk Office on temple land?

Rs. 31,000 per month from 08.03.2019, revised every three years and never reduced, with arrears in three months (paras 37–38, 41).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 1144, K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu, gift of temple inam land, Section 41 HR&CE Act, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, Section 34, void ab initio, temple property deity, trustee powers, Section 22-A Registration Act, fair rent, Kodumudi temple, Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Alok Aradhe

Judgment Copy

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1144 – K. Ramalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu (C.A. Nos. 13857–13858 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India.

Read more: Supreme Court · Civil Law · Religious Endowments