IMPORTANT POINT
Hereditary trustee has been defined to mean, the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long such scheme of succession is in force.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959-Section 63(b)-Hereditary trustee-Respondent Sabha filed an application u/s 63(b) for declaration that the Sabha is hereditary trustee of the religious institution-Application dismissed-Trial Court rejected claim of plaintiff Sabha-On appeal, Single Judge of the High Court dismissed plaintiff s claim holding that though the institution was founded by appellant Sabha, it was from collections and contributions from public also and that the same is meant for all Hindu worshipping public-However, Division Bench of the High Court held that Sabha was founder of the Temple, entitled to hold office of trusteeship as its hereditary trustee-Whether approach of the Division Bench of the High Court was justified-(No).
       Held : On consideration of the rival submissions, we feel that the approach of the Division Bench of the High Court was on erroneous premises and the conclusions appear to have been arrived at overlooking certain vital and basic underlying factors, the character of the temple as well as operation and impact of the provisions of the Act on the temple and the claims made in relation thereto. The basic question that arose was not whether a body of persons or society or office bearers of a Sabha can be recognised as hereditary trustee or a trustee of the temple. What was needed to be adjudicated was whether on the facts as also the prevailing and governing position of law, particularly the Act in question, the claim for hereditary trustee was established or could be sustained. (Para 14)
       A bare reading of definition of "hereditary trustee" brings into focus three important aspects; i.e. first, a trustee of a religious institution the succession to which is devolved by hereditary right; the second category is that succession can be regulated by usage and the third category is where succession relating to the office of trustee is specifically provided for by the founder and that too so long as the scheme of such succession is in force. In contrast to the criteria engrafted in Section 6(22), the definition in Section 6(11) lays special and specific emphasis on the succession to the office of trustee of a religious institution devolving by anyone of the three methods or manner envisaged therein. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the statutory authorities specially constituted under the Act have held the temple to be for all the worshipping Hindu public and not confined to the members of the Sabha only having regard to the manner in which funds were collected and the manner in which the public invitations and declarations have been made and day-to-day administration of the temple is being carried on from inception. Though there has been an application for declaration of the office of trustee of the religious institution to be an hereditary one, no application under Section 63(a) for a declaration as to whether the temple in question is a religious institution used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or section thereof was filed. Even after, specific findings by the statutory authorities as to the character of the institution conspicuous omission in this regard disentitled the respondent-Sabha to incidentally or vaguely project that it is for the members of the Sabha only. Once it is a religious institution within the meaning of the Act, the provisions of the Act have full force and effect and the claim of the nature, unless substantiated as provided for under the statute cannot be countenanced on certain assertions made which was besides such statutory provisions. (Para 15)
       No doubt, normally every donor contributing at the time of foundation of a Trust cannot claim to become a founder of the Trust, except in cases where all the contributors of the Trust Fund become the founders of the Trust itself inasmuch as a decision on the question as to whether a person can be a joint founder, cannot be made to rest merely upon the factum of contribution alone unless the surrounding and attendant circumstances proved in the case and subsequent conduct of parties warrant such a finding. All these issues also seem to be beside the real issue as to the hereditary nature of the office claimed - which by no means could be countenanced in law, in favour of the respondent-Sabha. The analysis undertaken by learned Single Judge seems to be correct. As noted above, Sabha itself came into existence a few years before the declaration was sought for by filing a suit by the present respondent. The concept of long continuance and passage of time is inbuilt in the expression usage and the factual position also in the present case does not enable the Sabha to establish application of the usage concept. That being so, the judgment of Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. (Paras 24 and 25)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-A Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment held that the respondent was entitled to hold office of trusteeship in Sri Lakshmi Perumal Temple in Nanganallur, Saidaret Taluk as hereditary trustee. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment and the Deputy Commissioner, the appellants herein question correctness of the judgment.

2. Background facts giving rise to the present appeal need to be noted in some detail.

Respondent-Sabha filed an application under Section 63(b) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (in short Act ), before the Deputy Commissioner (appellant No. 2 in the present appeal) for declaration that the Sabha is hereditary trustee of the religious institution. The application was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the dismissal was upheld by the Commissioner (the appellant No. 1 herein) against the rejection of the application, the respondent as plaintiff filed a statutory suit OS No. 257/1981 before Subordinate Judge, Chengleput. Present appellants as defendants took the stand that the suit temple is a public temple constructed out of the collections including collections from the members of the Sabha and the grant of funds from the Government, that it is not for the benefit of Sabha members only but for the benefit of the Hindu public at large, and thus the temple is one covered under Section 6(20) of the Act. The Trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff by holding that it is not entitled to be declared as hereditary trustee of the suit temple. At the same time since the Sabha had initiated and taken all efforts to construct the temple and manage it in the interest of general worshipping public, it would be appropriate to have one or more of the representatives of the Sabha, in the Board of Trustees as the authorities may deem fit. Aggrieved by that the plaintiff preferred an appeal (A.S. No. 240/84) which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The learned Judge also highlighted the difference inherently inbuilt in the definition of hereditary trustee in Section 6(11) and trustee in Section 6(22) of the Act. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Sabha in L.P.A. No. 275/1995 which was allowed and the judgment therein is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. The Division Bench in the High Court was of the view that the founder being the Sabha, the entire administration of the temple is vested in the Sabha only consisting of its office bearers and they alone are entitled to administer the temple and its properties.

3. Case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :

4. The Sabha itself was formulated for the purpose of constructing a new temple for the benefit of the members of the said Sabha and the Sabha was registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (in short the Societies Act ). The objects of the Sabha are to promote spiritual pursuits of Vashistadvaitha philosophy as propounded by Sri Bhagavath Ramanuja and Sri Vedantha Desika, to conduct discourses and arrange for lectures, to conduct classes in Vadas, Upanishads, Divyaprabandas and Stothrapathas relating to Vashishtadvaitha faith and philosophy, to work for cordial relationship and understanding among persons having different religions and also among persons practising different religions to make representations to Government and other leading religious institutions in connection with any religious issue of public importance, to secure representations on committees appointed by Government and other bodies relating to the objects of the Sabha, to construct own and maintain temples and other places of worship, Mantapams and the like to publish magazines, journals and other literatures; to establish and maintain libraries and reading rooms and to organise seminars, group discussions and conferences and raise charities, fund for the purpose of giving charities, etc.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 649

IMPORTANT POINT Hereditary trustee has been defined to mean, the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long such scheme of succession is in force.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Hereditary trustee has been defined to mean, the trustee of a religious institution, the succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right or is regulated by usage or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long such scheme of succession is in force.