Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J. - The fiscal - not the philosophical - implications of Jesus pragmatic injunction Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods - fall for jural exploration in these appeals, by special leave, the appellant being the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and the Respondent, Sree Jagannathji and the subject-matter the taxability of the deity Jugannathhi by the State under the Income-tax Act, 1922, beyond the admitted point. To appreciate the exigibility issue, we have to flash back to 19th Century Bengal and the then prevailing societal ethos of affluent Hindu piety, and we find ourselves in the spiritual-legal company of Raja Rajendra Mullick, at once holy and wealthy, who, in advancing years, executed a comprehensive will to promote his cherished godly wishes and to provide for his secularly dear cause and near relatives. The construction of this testamentary complex of dispositions and location of its destination are the principal exercises in these appeals.

2. Raja Renjendra Mullick Bahadur of Calcutta executed his last will and testament on 21 February 1887. While the author of the will was a Bengali brahmin of the last century, the draftsman of the document was John Hart, an English Solicitor. While the authors wishes are usually transmitted into the deed by the draftsman, the diction and accent are flavoured by the draftsmans ink. So it happens that this will represents pious Bengali wishes and dispositions - but draped in an English Solicitors legalese. The Courts function in such an ambiguous situation is to sheer clear of the confusion imparted by the diction and to reach the real intendment (of the testator). Such an essay in ascertaining the true intent of Raja Rajendra Mullick is fraught with difficulties and our guideline has to be to pick it up from the conspectus of clauses - rather than from particular expressions or isolated features. Only the totality tells the story of the authors mind as he unburdened himself of his properties for causes and purposes dear to his heart. The Courts discerning loyalty is not to the formalistic language used in drawing up the deed but to the intentions which the disponer desired should take effect in the manner he designed. This back-drop of observations made, we proceed to a broad delineation of the actual provisions.

3. The munificent testator had enormous estates, lavish charity, piety aplenty and a large family. So he trifurcated his assets as it were, provided for religious objects, eleemosynary purposes and members of his family. The last was distinctly and separately dealt with and we are not concerned with the bequests so made. But the first two were more or less lugged together and ample properties earmarked therefor. How did he engineer into legal effect these twin purposes? Did he create an absolute debutter of these properties, totally dedicating them to the deity whose devotees he and his father were, coupled with several directions, addressed to the shebaits, for application of the income for performance of stated pujas, execution of public charitable projects and payment of remuneration for sheba plus liberal grants and facilities to the sons and widows of sons who were objects of his bounty? Or did he really create a trust in the sense of the English law vesting the whole estate in trustees saddled with obligations to expend the income for enumerated items, godly and philanthrophic, creating but a partial debutter? This is the key question calling for adjudication but an alternative but interlaced- issue also arises. Assuming that a total debutter had been created, did the will contain directions for expenditure which siphoned off the income, as it accrued, for specified objects and entities in such manner that by such overriding diversion at the source, such income did not get into the hands of Lord Jagannath qua. His income but reached Him merely as collector of thos