Properties Dedicated to Deity Cannot Be Alienated Without Compliance Under HR & CE Act: Madras High Court

Suit Properties Absolutely Belong to the Deity – Trustees Are Mere Custodians Without Alienation Rights - Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal and upheld the sanctity of religious endowment properties, holding that lands dedicated to a temple deity are governed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (HR & CE Act) and cannot be alienated without compliance under Section 34 of the Act. Justice R. Sakthivel, presiding over the matter, concluded that the suit properties belonged to Lord Vinayagar as a juristic person and that the trustees were merely custodians without any power to sell or alienate the land.

The case concerned 8.24 acres of property in Thirumalaigiri Village, Namakkal, originally acquired in 1895 by one Nanjundaiyyar, allegedly for the performance of religious duties to Lord Vinayagar. The plaintiffs, claiming through the successors of Nanjundaiyyar, contended that the lands were private trust properties and sought a declaration of title and a mandatory injunction to rectify revenue records. The defendants, including the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR & CE Department), argued that the lands were religious endowment properties dedicated to the deity and governed by the HR & CE Act.

"The Suit Properties Absolutely Belong to the Deity"
Justice Sakthivel, examining the records, found that the lands were explicitly dedicated to the deity for religious purposes. Referring to the original sale deed executed in 1895 by Nanjundaiyyar, the court observed:

“The suit properties were purchased by Nanjundaiyyar in his capacity as a trustee of the Suit Idol Lord Vinayagar, with the intent to conduct poojas and religious charities to the deity consecrated in the Easwaran Temple at Samayasangili Village. The dedication of the lands to the deity is evident from the recital of the sale deed itself.”

This dedication was reiterated in a subsequent will executed by Nanjundaiyyar in 1905, which emphasized that the income derived from the properties was to be exclusively used for the performance of poojas and religious duties. The court quoted the will to underline the nature of the dedication:

“The properties listed under ‘B’ Schedule, referred to as ‘Pillaiyar Nilam,’ were expressly entrusted to Nanjundaiyyar’s adopted son, Sankararamaiyar, for their management, with a specific directive that the income derived therefrom be used to perform poojas to the Suit Idol.”

The court further highlighted the trust deed executed by Sankararamaiyar in 1960, wherein the remaining portion of the suit properties was added to the original dedication. Justice Sakthivel noted:

“From Ex-A.1, Ex-A.2, and Ex-A.4, it is easily discernible that the suit properties absolutely belong to the deity Lord Vinayagar. Initially, 1.90 acres were purchased by Nanjundaiyyar for the benefit of the idol, and subsequently, his adopted son dedicated an additional 6.10 acres to the deity for the same purpose. Trustees and managers merely act as custodians and have no power of alienation over the suit properties.”

The court concluded that the lands were not private trust properties as claimed by the plaintiffs but were instead religious endowment properties dedicated to the deity and held for the benefit of worshippers.

"The Trust OP Proceedings Were Not Maintainable"
The plaintiffs relied on a sale deed executed in 2007 and an earlier court order permitting the sale, obtained in Trust OP No. 46 of 2004 under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. However, the court found that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed and legally unsustainable. Justice Sakthivel emphasized that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, does not apply to religious endowment properties:

“The Trust OP proceedings were not maintainable because the suit properties are governed by the HR & CE Act and not the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The properties absolutely belong to the deity as a religious endowment, and the jurisdiction of the civil court was wrongly invoked.”

The court also noted that the HR & CE Department and other necessary parties were not impleaded in the Trust OP proceedings, rendering the order permitting the sale void and unenforceable. It observed:

“Neither the HR & CE Department nor the trustees of the temple were made parties to the Trust OP proceedings. Moreover, the order permitting the sale was passed without compliance with statutory requirements, including fixing a reserve price or conducting a public auction to ensure the highest price for the benefit of the deity.”

"An Unregistered Sale Deed Is Invalid and Confers No Title"
The plaintiffs’ reliance on an unregistered sale deed and an earlier sale agreement transferring possession was also rejected by the court. Justice Sakthivel clarified:

“Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, mandates that a sale of immovable property worth over Rs. 100 must be registered. An unregistered sale deed is incomplete and cannot confer title. Additionally, the plaintiffs’ reliance on the sale agreement is untenable, as the document was not registered despite purporting to transfer possession, violating Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.”

The court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to acquire any title or possessory rights over the suit properties and that the sale deed was legally invalid.

"Trustees Cannot Alienate Endowment Properties Without Compliance"
Emphasizing the statutory safeguards under the HR & CE Act, the court reiterated that trustees or managers of religious endowment properties have no independent power to alienate such lands. Justice Sakthivel stated:

“The alienation of religious endowment properties is strictly governed by Section 34 of the HR & CE Act, which requires prior permission from the Commissioner of the HR & CE Department or a competent civil court. The trustees, as custodians, must act in the best interests of the deity and worshippers.”

The court found that no such compliance had been demonstrated by the plaintiffs and held that the alleged sale was null and void.

The second appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the findings of the first appellate court that the suit properties were religious endowment lands belonging to the deity and could not be alienated by the trustees. The court concluded:

“The suit properties absolutely belong to the deity, and any alienation must comply with the provisions of the HR & CE Act. The trustees are mere custodians without alienation rights. The plaintiffs have no title or ownership over the suit properties, and the sale deed relied upon is invalid and unenforceable.

The judgment underscores the inviolability of religious endowment properties and the rigorous statutory safeguards against unauthorized alienation, ensuring that such lands remain dedicated to their intended religious purposes.

Date of Judgment: January 23, 2025