Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 304
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Karuppiah & Others
Versus
Mariappan & Another
S.A. No. 163 of 1983
Decided On :Decided On : 29-02-1996
For the Appellants:R. Nandakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:T.S. Selvam & T. Manikandan, Advocates.
A complete dedication of property for religious purposes occurs when the settlor intends to extinguish his title and transfer it to the trust, and the entire income from the property is to be utilized for the religious purposes specified in the trust document.
Headnote:
TRUST - DEDICATION - COMPLETE OR PARTIAL - DISTINCTION - PRINCIPLES - FACTUAL MATRIX - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT - INTENTION OF SETTLOR - ABSOLUTE DEDICATION FOUND - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TRUST PROPERTIES AND INJUNCTION - DECREE GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaint properties are trust properties and, therefore, defendants are not entitled to alienate or otherwise encumber the same, and for consequential injunction. The trial court granted the declaration, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that only a charge was created and the properties were alienable and hereditable. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the document in question evidenced a complete dedication of the properties for religious purposes, and not merely a charge. The court noted that the entire income from the properties was to be utilized for the religious purposes specified in the document, and that there was no provision for any surplus income to be enjoyed by the settlor or his heirs. The court also considered the evidence that even the entire income was insufficient to meet the expenses of the religious purposes.
Issues: 1. Whether the document in question created a complete dedication of the properties for religious purposes or only a charge? 2. Whether the properties were alienable and hereditable?
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles governing complete and partial dedication of properties for religious purposes. It held that the intention of the settlor is the key factor in determining whether a dedication is complete or partial. In this case, the court found that the intention of the settlor was to make a complete dedication of the properties for religious purposes, as evidenced by the fact that the entire income from the properties was to be utilized for those purposes and there was no provision for any surplus income to be enjoyed by the settlor or his heirs.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the judgment of the trial court. The suit was decreed as prayed for.
1. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 9 in O.S. No. 1057 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Palani, are the appellants.
2. Suit for declaration that the plaint properties are trust properties and, therefore, defendants are not entitled to alienate or otherwise encumber the same, and for consequential injunction.
3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumbam are two sons of one Chinna Kudumban. Karuppa Kudumban had two sons by name Paramasivam (father of plaintiffs 1 and 2) and Pachiappan (1st defendant). The second defendant is the son of 1st defendant. Chinna Karuppa Kudumban had three sons, viz., Pannadi (3rd plaintiff), Mariappan and Samiar alias Karuppanna Kudumban. Plaintiffs 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of Pannadi. Mariappan, father of plaintiffs 7 to 9, was unable to attend to any work. So, plaintiffs 7 to 9 are looking after his interest.
4. On 1.2.1923, Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban endowed and dedicated suit properties for certain religious and charitable purposes by mean of a document and thereby absolutely vested them with the Trust created under that document. They have constructed a small ‘Madam’ and installed Lord Vigneswara idol in Item No. 1 of the suit properties. They have also placed a portrait of one Sankaralingam Pillai, whom they considered as their family God. They also installed an idol called Nandan in Item No. 1 of the suit properties. Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban dedicated the suit properties for the purpose of performing ‘Pooja’ to Lord Vigneswara and the portrait of Sankaralingam Pillai and for the purpose of putting up light in the Madam and in the Nandan and for the purpose of performing Maheswara Pooja during Panguni Uthiram festival in the Palani Hill Temple. They dedicated the suit properties permanently for the above said purposes. As per the recitals in the trust document, t he properties are not liable to be alienated either by the persons who created the trust or by their heirs at any point of time. Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban agreed to do the above said activities alternatively and the above said Trust deed came into operation during the lifetime of Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban. The objects of the Trust were performed by both the brothers. After their death, the object of the Trust was performed by Paramasivam, the senior son of Karuppa Kudumban, and by the sons of Chinna Karuppa Kudumban. Paramasivam is now no more and the sons of Chinna Karuppa Kudumban have become old and they could not do anything now. So, the plaintiffs and the defendants were doing the activities mentioned in the Trust Deed. While so, defendants joined together and wanted to clutch the properties dedicated to the Trust, for themselves. Hence the suit for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the Trust, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties as Trustees.
5. In the written statement, the defence that is taken is that there is no dedication of the suit properties in favour of any Charity or Trust, and what has been created is only a Charity for doing some Poojas in Temple. Defendants say that a charge has been created as Rs. 60/- only and, therefore, the ownership is still with them. It is alienable and partible. According to them, the injunction prayed for cannot be granted.
6. The trial court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit properties are Trust properties and they have been dedicated for the purpose of charity and ‘Pooja’. The declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs, was granted. Against that, defendants preferred A.S. 122 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Dindigul.
7. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision and came to the conclusion that on a reading of the document, it can be seen that the intention was only to crea
