SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Mad) 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Nainar Sundaram, J.
Hajia Aiysha Nachiar Kalvi Arakkattalai, Nagore by its Trustee Hajia S.M.I Ayisha Nachiar, Nagore .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu represenned by Collector of Thanjavur. .....Respondent(s)
C.R.P. No. 1314 of 1976.
Decided On : 14 December 1978

Advocates:
R.G Rajan, N. Muthuswamy and Chellamuthu Rengarajan, for Petitioner.
The Additional Government order Pleaden for Respondent.

Test of religions trust of a public nature.

Headnote:Tamilnadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961-Section2(1)(ii) -Test for religions trust of a public nature.

       

Order.- The revision petitioner is Hajia Ayisha Nachiar Kalvi Arakkattalai, Nagore, by its Trustee Hajia S.M.I. Ayisha Nachiar, Nagore. Proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, Act LVIII of 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, were initiated by the Authorised Officer (Land Reforms), Nagapattinam, against Tmt. Hajia S.M.I Ayisha Nachiar. It has been found that she gave away an extent of 10.50 standard acres of lands to the petitioner Trust. Since the Trust by itself could come within the definition of ‘person’ under section 3 (34) of the Act, the holdings of the Trustees themselves were subject to separate assessment under the provisions of the Act. The Authorised Officer countenanced an exclusion under section 3 (22) of the Act of an extent of No. 67 standard acres and held that the net holdings of the Trust came to 9.83 standard acres. The trustee put forth a contention that the Trust is of a nature which would come within the definition of a ‘religious trust of public nature within the meaning of section 2 (1) ii) of the Act and hence the provisions of the Act would not apply to the lands held by the petitioner Trust. The Authorised Officer, on a consideration of the deed of trust marked in the case as Exhibit P-l dated 31st December, 1969 and the evidence of one A.H. Shaik Mohammed, who is the son of the Trustee’s sister examined as P.W.I, came to the conclusion that the Trust is a public trust of a charitable nature within the meaning of section 5 (1) (d) (i) of the Act and held that the petitioner Trust is eligible to retain only 5 standard acres and the balance of 4.83 standard acres was declared as surplus. The petitioner Trust preferred an appeal,C.M.A (L.T) No.35 of 1976, which was heard and disposed of by the Land Tribunal at Nagapattinam, and the Land Tribunal also, on an analysis of the recitals in the deed of trust, came to the conclusion that there is nothing religious in the Trust in question and it could only be held to be a public trust of a charitable nature and in this view, confirmed the order of the Authorised Officer. The present revision is directed against the Orders of the Land Tribunal.

2. Mr. R.G. Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge that there is a misconception in the minds of the forums below with regard to the proper construction of the recitals in the deed of trust. According to the learned counsel, a proper construction of the recitals in the deed of trust in the light of certain principles of the Mohammedan Law would compel the Court to uphold the contention of the revision petitioner that the Trust in question is a ‘religious trust of a public nature’ within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (ii) of the Act. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to extract hereunder the relevant recitals in the deed of trust. It is not posible to import straightaway the conception of a ‘trust’ as understood in the ordinary legal parlance, for the purpose of application of the provisions of the Act to the fact of this case. The Act has set out special definitions in respect of various categarics of Trust. Only when there is lack of a specific definition, we will be compelled to look to the import and implication of an expression used, as normally understood, in the general branch of law. Section 2 under which the petitioner seeks a total exemption reads as follows:

"2. Act not to apply to lands held by existing religious institution or religious trust of public nature — (1) Subject to the provisions of tub-sections (2) and (3) of section 6, nothing contained in this Act shall apply to lands held, —

(i) by any religious institution, or

(ii) by any religious trust of a public nature, which is in existence on the date of the commencement of this Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in rub-section (1), no such religious institution or religious trust of a public nature as is referred to in sub-section (1)





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top