Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959:
s. 6(16) and (19) - Institution in question - Nature of Whether a private property or 'specific endowment' - Held: As per the evidence (rock inscription), the public charity described therein constitutes a religious charity - Thus it creates a 'specific endowment' as specified u/s. 6(19) - Therefore, the property in question constitutes a specific endowment and is not a private property.
Words and Phrases:
'Specific endowment', 'religious charity' - Meaning of, in the context of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1959.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A “specific endowment” means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity. In the present case there is no question of performing the service in the temple or a math, the endowment in the present case must fall under the second category, i.e., it must be for the performance of a religious charity, to be a specific endowment. [Para 10] [1131-F]
2. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a public charity associated with Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. The second part of Section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1959 clarifies that there is no requirement for the public charity to be connected with a temple or a math. The phrase “public charity” has not been specifically defined under the Act. The 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. The fact that the uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion would not make any difference in the matter and would not make the trust a private trust. [Paras 11, 12] [1132A-D] Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC
951 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 583 - followed.
3. In the present case, the rock inscription in the institution in question which governs the functioning of the institution provides for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefits the “public”. The rock inscription specifically states that the charity of feeding the Brahmins is to be done at the time of specific religious festivals, viz., “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which is held in the Mylapore temple, and the festival in Sri Thiagarajaswami temple, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. As such, the public charity described in the rock inscription, being associated with a religious festival, constitutes a religious charity as defined under the Act. [Paras 13, 14 and 15] [1132-E-G; 1133-B]
The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1916 : [1965] SCR 168 - relied on.
4. Under Section 6(19) of the Act, the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money that has been endowed for the performance of a religious charity. As it is held that the rock inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that money has been endowed for the performance of the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act. [Para 16] [1133-C]
5. While the word “endow”, and the connected word “endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with respect to religion or charity. [Para 17] [1133-D-E]
Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Deputy Charity
Commissioner Gujarat, (1987) Supp. SCC 714 : [1987] SCR 909 - relied on.
The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar Second Edn., p. 634, 635 - referred to.
6. In the present case, the rock inscription clearly provides for the utilization of money from the institution in question for the purposes of performing the charitable activity of feeding Brahmins during the specified religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock inscription creates a “specific endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls within the ambit of the Act. [Para 17] [1133-E-F]
7. On perusal of the inscription, it cannot be said that the rock inscription did not constitute a specific endowment as the same was vague, secular in nature and did not result in any divestment of title. The rock inscription clearly stipulates the festivals during which the activity of feeding of Brahmins should be conducted. Not only are these festivals Hindu festivals, but the reference to "Brahmins" in the rock inscription itself clearly indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. [Para 21] [1134-E-G]
M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 653 : [1966] SCR 643 - relied on.
8. The contents of the rock inscription are also sufficient to hold that there has been a valid divestment. The rock inscription clearly indicates that the institution is to be managed by the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds for the benefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that the managers do not have any power of alienation with respect to the institution. [Para 22] [1135-D-E]
9. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been party to earlier proceedings, before the Charity authorities and the Courts, wherein he had filed pleadings to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” constituted a “specific endowment”. Although the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant ultimately withdrew the application before the Deputy Commissioner wherein he made the said pleading, it is quite disingenuous of him to have subsequently filed an application before the Commissioner claiming the same property to be his personal property. [Para 23] [1135-F-G]
K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors. (2016) 15 SCC 597 : [2015] 10 SCR 176 - relied on. Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. VinayakarArudra Tiruppani Sabha, AIR 1953 Madras 407 ; M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments, Madras (1978) 91 LW 337 referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.