Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMAPRASADA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAVEL PANDIAN
R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar
Versus
The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras & Others
App. No. 256, 341, 686 of 1972 & 378 of 1974
Decided On :Decided On : 03-02-1977
HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959 - SECTIONS 6(17), 6(19) - MADRAS ACT 22 OF 1959 - SECTIONS 6(17), 6(19) - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - SPECIFIC ENDOWMENT - DISTINCTION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - INTENTION TO DEDICATE PROPERTY - ACTUAL DIVESTMENT OR APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY - PUBLIC NATURE OF ENDOWMENT - UNCERTAIN AND FLUCTUATING BODY OF BENEFICIARIES - PRIVATE NATURE OF ENDOWMENT - DEFINITE AND ASCERTAINED BENEFICIARIES - ABHISHEKAM PERFORMED IN SIVA TEMPLES - INTENTION TO BENEFIT FAMILY MEMBERS - NO DIVESTMENT OF OWNERSHIP - NO PUBLIC NATURE - PRIVATE ENDOWMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Late Arunachalam Chettiar, a religious and charitable minded person, created endowments for the spiritual benefit of himself, his descendants, and close relatives. He died in 1938, leaving behind two widows and a widowed daughter-in-law, who adopted sons in accordance with the custom of the Nattukottai Chettiar community. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the adopted sons of late Arunachalam Chettiar, and the third defendant is his adopted grandson. Internal disputes in the family led to a suit for administration and partition of the estate of late Arunachalam Chettiar, which ended in a compromise. In the compromise, the private character of the endowment was recognized, and a scheme was framed for its management. Subsequently, in another family litigation, the plaintiff was recognized as the trustee to be in charge of the endowed properties. The plaintiff instituted three suits to set aside the orders of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, declaring certain endowments as religious or specific endowments. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner held that some endowments were secular, some religious, and some specific. Appeals were filed before the Commissioner, who agreed with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff challenged the orders of the Commissioner in the three suits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the endowments in question were not religious or specific endowments within the meaning of the Act. It found that there was no clear intention to dedicate the property for the particular purpose, and there was no actual divestment or appropriation of the property to the specific object. The court also found that the beneficiaries of the service were definite and ascertained individuals belonging to the family of the donor, and they were vested with the discretion to utilize the fund for performing the Abhishekam in any Siva temple of their choice. This solitary element would not make it a public endowment.
Issues: 1. Whether the endowments created by late Arunachalam Chettiar were religious or specific endowments within the meaning of the Act? 2. Whether the intention to dedicate property for a particular purpose and the actual divestment or appropriation of the property to the specific object were present in the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A religious endowment or endowment is defined in S. 6, clause 17 of Madras Act 22 of 1959 as all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof; but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or other employees of a religious institution. 2. A specific endowment is defined in Sec. 6 clause 19 as any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, or the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (11). 3. To constitute a valid endowment, it is necessary that the donor should divest himself of the property. What is essential is that there should be an unambiguous expression of an intention to divest and an actual divestment for the benefit of the beneficiary, for example, the temple or the particular purpose specified. 4. The essential distinction in Hindu law between religious endowments which are public and those which are private is that in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained.
Final Decision: The court allowed A.S. No. 256 of 1972 and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. It also allowed A.S. No. 686 of 1972 and set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. In A.S. No. 341 of 1972 and 378 of 1974, the court dismissed A.S. No. 341 of 1972 and allowed A.S. No. 378 of 1974 in part.
RAMAPRASADA RAO, J.
1. The above four appeals are against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in which the relief sought was to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras dated 7th February 1969. A.S. No. 256 of 1972 is against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 46 of 1969, which was filed to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in Appeal case No. 38 of 963, and A.S. 686 of 1972 is against the judgment in O.S. No. 47 of 1969. which was filed to set aside the order in Appeal case No. 44 of 1963 on the file of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras. A.S. 341 of 1972 and 378 of 1974 are against the judgment of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in O.S. No. 48 of 1969, which was filed to set aside the order in A.C. No. 58 of 1963.
2. We shall now take up A.S. 256 and 686 of 1972. The common facts which arise for consideration may be stated thus Late RM, AR. AR. RM. Arunachala Chettiar, a native of Devakottai, was religious and charitable minded. According to the plaintiff, he created endowments purely of a private character for the spiritual benefit of himself, his descendants, To the members of his family and his close relatives and friends. He died on 23rd February, 1938, leaving behind him surviving his two widows and a widowed daughter-in-law, the wife of a predeceased son, who was also childless. Each of the two widows and the widowed daughter-in-law adopted a son in accordance with the custom of the Nattukottai Chettiar community. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the adopted sons of late Arunachalam Chettiar and the third defendant is his adopted grandson. Consequent upon certain internal disputes in the family a suit for administration and partition of the estate of late Arunachalam Chettiar was filed, and it was numbered as O.S. No. 93 of 1938 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai. In that suit properties privately endowed by late Chettiar were also the subject-matter. Two joint receivers were appointed in that suit which ended in a compromise. In the said compromise the private character of the endowment was recognised and a scheme was framed thereto under which the trust should be maintained in rotation by the plaintiff and defendants
2 and 3 each for one year. Subsequently, in another family litigation, O.S. 35 of 1966 Sub Court, Devakottai, the plaintiff has been recognised as the trustee to be in charge of the endowed properties. It is in that capacity and after due sanction the plaintiff has instituted the three suits referred to above in the circumstances to be stated hereafter,
3. The plaintiff has traced the history of the endowments thus—Late Arunachalam Chettiar was doing worship in many saivite temples. He did many charities some of which were religious in character and some secular. He used to set apart moneys in the course of his business for the aforesaid purposes. Considerable amounts so set apart got accumulated. Late Arunachalam Chettiar, therefore, had to execute trust-deeds and at one particular point of time was called upon to confirm such trust before the Income tax authorities. Ex. A.4 is one such affidavit filed by him before the taxing authorities affirming the nature of the trust created by him. The trusts were being performed by turn trustees in accordance with the intentions of the author of the trust. There was no interference by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department till the death of the founder of the trust. At one time there was an attempt by the Department to interfere and levy fees under Act 19 of 1951, as if the endowments were of a public nature. The aggrieved persons filed successfully writ petitions before the High Court and prevented such a levy. But in the above proceedings the question whether the endowments created by late Arunachalam Chettiar was of a public nature or whe
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
