Requirement of test of exclusiveness.

This is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of our learned brother Balakrishna Ayyar, J., in which he held that the charitable trusts founded by Urumu Seshachlam Chettiar did not constitute Hindu Public Charitable Endowments within the scope of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XIX of 1951). The learned Judge directed the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the Notification, dated 20th September, 1957, issued by the Government under section 3 of that Act, extending the provisions of that Act to these charities. That Act has since been repealed and has been replaced by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1959). There has been no change in the relevant statutory provisions we have to consider in this appeal. We shall refer to the statutory provisions of Act XIX of 1951, and we shall refer to it as the Act in the rest of this judgment.

Paragraph 4 of the Trust deed, dated 12th November, 1952, executed by Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar provided:

“ The main objects of the Trust are:-

(a) To run Educational and Industrial Institutions.

(b) To provide facilities for poor, helpless, and deserving Hindu boys and girls to get themselves, equipped physically, mentally and morally for leading a good life and be of service to themselves and to society.

(c) To train young people for the service of the country.

(d) To imbibe our ancient culture and to inculcate the same into the minds of our young boys and girls; and

(e) To do such other things as may in the discretion of the trustees be good and beneficial for the social and educational advancement of the boys and girls.”

The provision in paragraph 7 (a) of the Trust deed was:

The trustees may for the purpose of carrying on the trust:-

acquire the Urumu Dhanalakshmi Vidyalayam and the Urumu Seshachalam Chetty Hindu Orphanage and similar other institutions, conduct those institutions and make all necessary additions alterations and improvements for the all round expansion of the trust.“

Balakrishna Ayyar, J., pointed out that the Vidyalayam referred to in paragraph 7 (a) of the Trust deed was not a wholly Hindu institution, but it was open to members of other communities as well. The learned Judge referred in particular to clauses (a), (c), and (e) of paragraph 4 of the Trust deed, and his finding was: It is clear that the settlor intended to bene fit communities other than Hindus alone.”

The correctness of the finding of the learned Judge, that the benefits of the charities founded by Seshachala under the Trust deed were not confined exclusively to Hindus, could not be assailed, and we did not understand the learned Advocate-General who appeared for the State (appellant), to challenge the correctness of that finding.

After pointing out that the Act applied to (1) Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments, and (2) Hindu Public Charitable Institutions and Endowments the learned Judge observed:

“The word ‘Hindu’ must be given the same connotation whether it is read in connection with religious institutions and endowments or whether it is read in connection with charitable institutions and endowments. Now, we can have a Hindu religious institution or a Christian religious institution or a Muslim religious institutions. But I do not see how we can have a religious institution which is at one and the same time partly Hindu and partly Christian or partly Muslim.”

The learned Judge observed further:

“There can be no doubt whatever that so far as religious institutions are concerned the Act is intended to apply only to religious institutions and endowments which are exclusively Hindu in character.”

With reference to the endowments created by Seshachala the final conclusion of the learned Judge was thus expressed:

"After having read the entire document and examined the various considerations urged by the learned counsel for the Respondents, I am clear in my mind that it would not be right to say that the institution or endowment s