1965 Supreme(SC) 47

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th February 1965
K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
State of Madras, Appellant
Versus
Kunnakudi Melamatam and anothers, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 445 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. Ranganadham Chetty, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, with him), for Appellant, ( Mr. T. K. Sundararaman, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1.

A decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments under Section 84(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927) is final and binding on the Board for purposes of the Act and the correctness of the decision cannot be challenged on the ground that it is erroneous.

Headnote:

MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - MATH - DEFINITION - INSTITUTION NOT A MATH - LEVY OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND AUDIT FEES - INJUNCTION - ESTOPPEL.

Fact of the Case:

The Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Mitam was founded by Sri La Sri Maunanandaswami to feed and render relief to poor pilgrims visiting Kunnakudi. The institution was managed by Maunanandaswami during his lifetime and thereafter by his successors. By his will dated December 12, 1935, Ganapathiswamigal named Muthuramalingam and Nityanandaswami (II) as his successors. Muthuramalingam claimed to be the sole de facto and de jure trustee of the institution. A dispute arose as to whether the institution was a Math or a temple as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927). The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments held that the institution was outside the purview of the Act. Muthuramalingam filed a suit for an injunction restraining the Board from levying any contribution under the Act, alleging that the institution was outside the purview of the Act and the levy was otherwise illegal.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the institution was not a Math within the meaning of Section 6(10) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951) and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by Section 93 of Act XIX of 1951 in so far as it claimed the relief of injunction restraining the levy of contribution and audit fees under Act XIX of 1951. The Supreme Court also held that the decision of the Board dated February 12, 1932, by which it was held that the institution was outside the purview of Act II of 1927, was final and binding on the Board for purposes of Act II of 1927 and the correctness of the decision could not be challenged on the ground that it was erroneous. The Supreme Court further held that the character of the institution was not changed by the will of Ganapathiswamigal, dated December 12, 1935, and that he had no power to change the character of the institution. The Supreme Court also held that the assessment of the contributions under Section 70 of the Act was not a decision under Section 84(1) that the institution was a Math as defined in the Act and that the decision had become final under Section 84(2). The Supreme Court also held that the contributions demanded under Act II of 1927 were not legally payable to the Board under that Act and consequently, those contributions were not payable under Act XIX of 1951. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff was not estopped from contending that it was not a Math within the meaning of Act II of 1927.

Issues: Whether the institution was a Math within the meaning of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927) and the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act XIX of 1951).

Ratio Decidendi: The definition of Math under Section 6(10) of Act XIX of 1951 requires the institution to have properties attached to it, a person whose duty is to engage in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples, and places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution. The institution in question did not meet these requirements and was therefore not a Math within the meaning of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The suit was decreed in so far as it claimed injunction restraining the levy of contributions from the plaintiff under Sections 69 and 70 of Madras Act II of 1927 and from taking any coercive steps in pursuance of any demands against the plaintiff under Act II of 1927. The suit was dismissed in so far as it claimed injunction restraining the levy of contributions and taking any coercive steps in respect of demands against the plaintiff under Madras Act XIX of 1951.