Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Arulmighu Pappi Chetty, Ragaviah Chetty’s Charities, Represented by its Trustees - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department - Respondent
A.S.No.382 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.8314 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9183 of 2022
Decided On : 18-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Rajagopal
For the Respondents: Mr. N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, Special Government Pleader.

The definition of 'specific endowment' is consistent across the 1951 and 1959 Acts, and prior judicial determinations regarding the Trust's character are binding, preventing re-litigation.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 - Section 63(a) and Section 70(1) - The appellants sought a declaration that a Trust for performance of endowments does not come under the Act’s purview, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Appellants claimed no property was designated for religious service; the Act applies to specific endowments as determined in prior proceedings. The court affirmed previous findings stating the Trust was a specific endowment, hence subject to the Act (Paras 1-2, 12-30).

(B) Legal principle: The definition of 'specific endowment' remains unchanged under both the 1951 and 1959 Acts, and settled findings cannot be re-litigated without substantial grounds. (Para 22).

Facts of the case:
The appellants represent a Trust established in 1912 and sought to challenge the application of the HR and CE Act based on previous findings that the Trust included religious and secular purposes. They argued against the character of the Trust based on the Trust Deed. (Para 2).

Findings of Court:
The court held that previous legal determinations regarding the Trust’s status as a specific endowment remain binding; no new arguments warranted a different conclusion. (Paras 28-29).

Issues: Whether the Trust should be declared a Private Institution outside the HR and CE Act's jurisdiction, and if earlier findings can be re-evaluated. (Paras 10-11).

Ratio Decidendi: The Trial Court’s findings are binding as the appellants did not appeal earlier judgments; the present Act applies to existing legal determinations about specific endowments. (Paras 28-29).

Result: Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Table of Content
1. factual background on the trust and the appeal (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural details of the trial. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments of the appellants regarding the trust's status. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. consideration of additional evidence and its relevance. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. court observations on the trust deed's implications. (Para 14 , 15)
6. historical rulings on the nature of the trust. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
7. final rulings on the appellants' claims. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 29)
8. legal definitions and their implications. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
9. final conclusions of the court. (Para 30)

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants herein. They filed a statutory suit under Section 70 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'HR and CE Act' for the sake of brevity) seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1^st respondent/1^st defendant dismissing the application filed by the appellants under Section 63(a) of HR and CE Act for declaration that performance of endowment as contemplated under Schedule ‘H’ to the Trust Deed dated 24.07.1912 of the Trust popularly known as 'Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty’s Charities' will not come under the purview of HR and CE Act, 1959 (22 of 1959). The appellants also sought for a declaration that the above said Trust was a Private Institution, not coming within the purview of HR and CE Act. The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the above said Trust will come under the purview of HR and CE Act. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs has come by way of this appeal before this Court.

Averment contained in the Plaint:-

2. The 1^st Plaintiff-Trust namely 'Arulmighu Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty’s Charities' was created by one Sri Pappi Chetty Raghava Chetty under a Trust Deed marked as Ex.A1, dated 24.07.1912. According to the plaintiffs, the Items 1 to 13 in ‘H’ Schedule to the Trust Deed was relating to the performance of certain endowments in Temples and other activities mentioned thereon were secular in nature. The plaintiffs contended that no property was endowed or dedicated for the performance of religious, charitable and secular activities contemplated under the Trust Deed. It is stated that a perusal of the Trust Deed would indicate that ‘H’ Schedule contains various performance of secular activities and only few of the activities are religious in nature and in such circumstances, the 1^st Plaintiff- Trust cannot be treated as a specific endowment within the meaning of Section 6 (19) of HR and CE Act. Therefore, in the light of the clauses contained in Ex.A1-Trust Deed, the character of institution shall be determined under Section 63 (a) of HR and CE Act. The respondents 1 and 2, in an application filed under Section 63 (a) of HR and CE Act, seeking declaration that the 1^st Plaintiff-Trust would not come within the purview of HR and CE Act, erroneously rejected the prayer by referring to earlier proceedings mentioned in Ex.A6-Legal Opinion marked by the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for.

The averment contained in the Written Statement filed by the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 2:-

3. The suit prayer was opposed by the Official Defendants on the ground that the character of institution was decided by Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board as early as 07.02.1948 under Madras Act 2 of of 1927 and the said decision had become final and binding on the plaintiffs. It was also stated that the 1^st Plaintiff-Trust filed a suit in O.S.No.1985 of 1954 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that Items 1 to 31 in the Schedule ‘H’ in the Trust Deed were not specific endowments and hence, HR and CE Act 19 of 1951 would not apply to the said Trust and the said suit was dismissed by the City Civil Court holding that the religious activities contemplated under Schedule ‘H’ were specific endowment. The said deci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5208

The definition of 'specific endowment' is consistent across the 1951 and 1959 Acts, and prior judicial determinations regarding the Trust's character are binding, preventing re-litigation.

Related Judgments

Arulmighu Pappi Chetty, Ragaviah Chetty’s Charities, Represented by its Trustees vs Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74969

S. P. Selvam & VS Commissioner H. R. & C. E. Admn. Department, Chennai - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 2971

Kimji Patel VS Idol of Sri. Samayapuram Mariamman S. Kannanoor Mannachanallur Taluk, Represented by its Executive Officer, Trichy - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 589

Vaka Raghava Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy VS Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1505

Vutla Buddaiah Chowdary VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(AP) 78

K.M.Sanjeevi Raja (died) vs Pudupalayam Sakarajakottai - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78007

K.M.Sanjeevi Raja vs Pudupalayam Sakarajakottai Poosapadi Dayadi Pannai Nandavanam, Rajapalayam Represented by its President - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2783

Ashish VS Murti Shri Ramchandra Virajman - 2022 Supreme(All) 689

Vighneswara Swami Temple vs K Venkatarama Reddy - 2025 Supreme(AP) 1010

Sri Santhana Srinivasa Perumal Public Charitable Trust, Represented by its Trustee/Treasurer, V. Venkateswaran, Chennai VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary to Government, Chennai - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 3207