Gift Of Inam Property Dedicated To Support Of A Deity Is Void Ab Initio Under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act: Supreme Court

The Court ruled that the State is a custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner, and cannot usurp the property it is charged to protect. It declared the gift to the Government void but left the Taluk Office standing, retaining the lease at Rs. 31,000 per month, and directed the State to pay Rs. 1,00,000 in costs.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed, “…Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act, while similarly declaring “any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years” of an inam property to be null and void, permits the Government to sanction only “any transaction of the nature aforesaid (not being a gift)”…The Legislature has thus consciously withheld from a gift of an inam property, the very possibility of subsequent validation, by the Commissioner or the Government alike. A gift of an inam property dedicated to the support of a deity is, in consequence, void ab initio and no sanction, however solemnly accorded, could have breathed life into it”.

Advocate S. Ravi Shankar appeared for the appellants while Haripriya Padmanabhan, Additional Advocate General, Senior Advocate M. Sathyanarayanan appeared for the respondent.

The subject land, about one acre in Kodumudi Village, Erode District, belonged to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple. In August 2017, a temporary trustee gifted it to the Government for a Taluk Office, and the Tehsildar accepted the gift. A writ petition by villagers was withdrawn. The hereditary trustee then challenged the gift, but the Madras High Court dismissed his petition on March 19, 2019.

It held that Section 34 of the 1959 Act does not mention gifts and that title was a disputed question of fact. Devotees were later permitted to approach the Supreme Court. In 2022, the State told the Court on affidavit that the land was inam land and that its gift was prohibited.

The Court held that Section 34(5) excludes inams from Section 34, so Section 41 governs. Section 41(1) declares a gift of inam property null and void and, unlike other transactions, permits no government sanction for a gift. The gift was therefore void ab initio. Its registration was also barred by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, and registration could not cure the defect. Even under Section 34, the gift would fail for want of sanction.

A gift, being gratuitous, cannot be an act of ordinary prudence by a trustee under Sections 27 and 28. The State is custodian and regulator of temple property, not its owner. The Court also criticised the State for defending the gift for years until questioned by this Court.

The Court set aside the High Court’s order and declared the land inam property vested in the Temple. It declared the gift deed void and its registration of no legal effect. The lease to the Government was kept in place, with rent enhanced to Rs. 31,000 per month from March 8, 2019, to be refixed every three years. Arrears are payable within three months, and the lease terms are to be set by the trust with the Temple’s benefit paramount. The State must pay Rs. 1,00,000 in costs within eight weeks and strictly follow Sections 34, 34-A and 41.

Cause Title: K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1144)

Appearances:

Appellants: S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate.

Respondents: K.L. Janjani, Haripriya Padmanabhan, Additional Advocate General, M. Sathyanarayanan, Senior Counsel, Shailesh Madiyal, amicus curiae.

Click here to read/download the Judgment