2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 99147

MADRAS HIGH COURT
KADAMBADI INOOTHY VAGAI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
SA 310 2017

Whether there is a total dedication of the property in favour of deity or not is a question of fact and the same has to be determined in the light of material terms used in the document.

Headnote:

DEDICATION OF PROPERTY - RELIGIOUS PURPOSES - [SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908] - [SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908] - [SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908]Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in interpreting Ex.A1 (Partition Deed) and Ex.A2 (Release Deed) with reference to the objects avowed? - Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in arriving at the conclusion that the temple is the title holder of the schedule property in absence of any single document produced by the temple lending support to the same?

Fact of the Case:

The suit property originally belonged to Chinnan Chettiar and family. In the year 1901, there was a registered partition between son of Chinnan Chettiar viz., Karuppan Chettiar and his two sons Viswanathan Chettiar and Venkatachalam Chettiar. In the said partition, the suit property in S.F.No.93 was allotted to Viswanathan Chettiar under ''B'' schedule to partition deed. As per the recitals in the document an obligation was imposed on Viswanathan Chettiar to perform certain religious duties out of the income from the property. The said Viswanathan Chettiar in the year 1904 executed a release deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff in respect of suit property. The patta for the suit property was in the name of Viswanathan Chettiar and he addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Avinashi on 05.06.1928 requesting him to transfer patta in the name of appellant/plaintiff. Thus the revenue records namely patta had been in the name of appellant from 1928 to 1987. In the year 1987, Tahsildar of Avinashi issued patta for the suit property in the name of appellant Sabai represented by its President Venkatachala Chettiar. Thus the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of the appellant for more than 100 years. Since the suit property could not fetch desired income, the appellant decided to construct a Kalyana Mandapam to generate income so as to look after the obligations imposed by 1901 document. In the year 1988 clandestinely the patta of the suit property was transferred in favour of 5th respondent temple. The appellant represented to the 4th respondent to make necessary correction in the revenue records namely patta seeking removal of 5th respondent's name and for the inclusion of appellant name. The 4th respondent gave a finding in favour of appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur. The order passed by the 4th respondent was confirmed by Revenue Divisional Officer, the third respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent preferred a revision before the second respondent and the second respondent without proper appreciation of records set aside the orders of respondents 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before this Court and the same was dismissed. Hence, the appellant preferred a Writ Appeal and the same was disposed of by observing that the appellant was entitled to file a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief. Therefore, the appellant has filed the present suit seeking declaration of title and mandatory injunction as prayed for.

Finding of the Court:

The Courts below on proper consideration of terms of Exs.A1 and A2 rightly came to the conclusion that there was a total dedication of the property in favour of 5th respondent temple. In such circumstances, both the questions of law framed at the time of admission are answered against the appellant and in favour of respondent. In view of the answer to both the questions of law, the second appeal is dismissed.

Issues: 1. Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in interpreting Ex.A1 (Partition Deed) and Ex.A2 (Release Deed) with reference to the objects avowed?2. Whether the learned Sub Judge is right in arriving at the conclusion that the temple is the title holder of the schedule property in absence of any single document produced by the temple lending support to the same?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The guiding principles in deciding the dedication of property to charity was very well explained by Apex Court in Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another Vs. Duddukudru Subbu Rao and others reported in AIR 1957 SCC 797.2. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete.3. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication.

Final Decision: The second appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.