Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 24
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD ATKINSON, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
JADU NATH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
THAKUR SITA RAMJI - Respondents
On Appeal From The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.
Decided On : April 24, 1917.
Solicitors for appellants:Watkins & Hunter. Solicitors fox respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.
A deed dedicating property to a deity is a complete gift if the intention is clear, even if family members are appointed as managers and granted a portion of the income as remuneration, provided the corpus remains vested in the deity.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Endowment of property to a deity - Construction of deed - Where a deed expresses a clear intention to dedicate the whole estate to a deity and a temple, the gift is complete. The appointment of family members as managers and the allocation of a portion of the income for their support as remuneration does not negate the endowment or "cut down" the gift to the deity.
(B) Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule I, Article 144 - If property vests in a deity from the date of the deed, a suit for possession instituted after the statutory period of twelve years is barred by limitation.
Facts of the case:
The head of a joint family executed and registered a deed dedicating his entire property to a temple. The deed provided that he, and subsequently specific family members, would manage the estate. Half of the net income was to be used for religious ceremonies and temple upkeep, while the other half was for the support of the family managers. The managers were prohibited from alienating the property. The reversionary heirs challenged the endowment, claiming it was a device to provide for female relatives and shield assets from creditors, rather than a real endowment.
Findings of Court:
The deed was a valid endowment. The provision for family members to receive half the income was for their maintenance as managers and did not invalidate the gift to the deity. The small size of the income indicated that the deed was not a fraudulent device to benefit the family at the expense of the heirs.
Issues: Whether the deed constituted a real endowment of the property to the deity or was merely a device to provide for family members and avoid creditors.
Ratio Decidendi: A clear expression of intention to apply the whole estate for the benefit of a deity constitutes a complete gift. Such a gift is not invalidated by the nomination of family members as managers or the earmarking of a portion of the income for their remuneration, provided the corpus of the property remains dedicated to the deity and is not alienated.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
endowments
- religious endowments
-
endowments
-
practice and procedure
- limitation
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (November 24, 1913), reversing a decree of the Additional Judge of Hardoi.
The suit was instituted on November 15, 1910, by the appellants as reversionary heirs of one Darshan Singh, who died on November 17, 1898, against the respondents for possession of certain property which had belonged to Darshan Singh. By a deed dated July 20, 1898, the material provisions of which appear from the judgment of their Lordships, Darshan Singh had dedicated the whole of his property to the temple of the respondent Thakur, and had provided that the other respondents should be managers after the donees death and in that capacity should enjoy half the net income.
Law. Rep. 44 Ind. App. 187 ( 1916- 1917)
Jadu Nath Singh V. Thakur Sita Ramji 58
The Additional Judge of Hardoi held that under the deed the property did not pass to the idol but was merely charged for the expenses of the temple to the extent of half the profits. He accordingly made a decree in the appellants favour subject to their defraying those expenses to the extent of half the income.
Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. The learned judges held that on the true construction of the deed the corpus of the property was given to the idol and dedicated to the purposes of the temple, and that if there was any charge it was in favour of the widowed members of the donees family. They further were of opinion that the fact that the donee did not effect a mutation of names in his lifetime was not material seeing that the rents of the endowed property fell due after his death. Finally they held that the property vested in the idol from the date of the deed and that the suit not having been instituted within twelve years of that date was barred under the Indian Limitation Act (IX. of 1908), Sched. I., art. 144.
1917. April 24. Sir William Garth and S. V. Sen, for the appellants. Although in form there was a complete gift to the idol the real intention was to benefit the donees family and to secure the property from creditors. The donee did not effect mutation of names nor act upon the deed in any way. If it operates at all it merely creates a charge upon the property for the temple expenses to the extent of half the income. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Sonatun By sack v. Juggutsoondaree Dossee (8 Moo. Ind. Ap. 66.) and Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee. (L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 182.) [Reference was also made to Brojosoondery Debia v. Luchmee Koonwarree (( 1875) 15 Beng.
L. R. 176 n.).] The suit was not barred by limitation, because there was no adverse possession until the death of the donee.
De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the respondents, were not called upon.
The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT HALDANE. Their Lordships think this is a very plain case, and they propose to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to the Sovereign.
The whole question arises on the construction of a deed of endowment executed by one Darshan Singh on July 20, 1898. There had been a joint family, and he and his brother, the heads of the joint family, had made a joint will and the brother had died before him. Darshan Singh was desirous by this date of making a disposition of the property, which was now his as head of the joint family, so that it should be devoted to religious purposes, and he executed this deed and afterwards, by registering it, showed that it represented an intention which he desired to treat as carried into execution. The deed begins by saying that he dedicates his whole property to and in favour of the temple of Sita Ramji; then he goes on to say that during his lifetime, he himself will manage and administer the estate of the temple ; after that, he provides that his daughter-in-law is to act as manager and administrator, and, after her, his own daughters, Musammat Janki and Musamma
