Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – ss.6(16), 6(19), 34, 108 – Person purchased property for performing charitable work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum – On a portion, a Stone Mandapam was constructed for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy, to invite and receive its blessings during Hindu festival months – He executed a Deed of Settlement inter alia prohibiting the trustees from sale/mortgage of the property – First respondent-trust filed suit seeking permission for sale of the property leaving aside the area consisting the ‘Stone Mandapam’– Suit decreed – Judgment upheld – Appellant filed second appeal, dismissed by High Court – Held: Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor – Settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activities at the suit property – Deed of Settlement created an endowment for charitable purposes – Charity described in the Deed of Settlement is a religious charity u/s.6(16) – First respondent trust is a specific endowment under the 1959 Act – As long as there exists a specific endowment defined in s.6(19), the provisions of the 1959 Act will apply to first respondent – s.108 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to try matters regulated by 1959 Act – Thus, suit filed by first respondent is not maintainable as u/s.34, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land – Order of High Court set aside – Suit filed by first respondent dismissed – Trust.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – s.6(19) – Specific endowment – Held: A specific endowment can result from the allocation of either property or money (or both) which can be for either a specific charity or service in a particular math or temple – Alternatively, it can be for the performance of “any other religious charity”.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959– s.6(16) – Religious Charity – Conditions to be met – Discussed.
Trust/Charity – Public or private – Distinction – Held: Where the beneficiaries of a trust/charity are limited to a finite group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character – However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large or an amorphous, fluctuating body of persons incapable of being specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character – Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 – s.3 – Applicability of – Discussed.
Words & Expressions – ‘endow’ – Meaning of – Discussed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The existence of a specific endowment is a question to be determined in the light of the material terms used in the Deed of Settlement. The nature of the instrument must be ascertained on a fair and reasonable construction of the Deed considered as a whole. Section 6(19), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 defines a specific endowment. A specific endowment can result from the allocation of either property or money (or both). Further, the allocation of the property or money can be for either a specific charity or service in a particular math or temple. Alternatively, it can be for the performance of “any other religious charity”. The term “endow” means to give or bequeath a thing, property or otherwise. Where the text of the deed purports to divest the property from the settlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the property has been endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not be absolute towards the charitable purpose and may reserve some portion of the property or resultant income from the property for the legal heirs of the settlor. The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement creates an absolute prohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage of the suit property. With respect to the legal heirs, the Deed of Settlement creates an obligation on the settlor’s legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property out of their business incomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of the endowment was to carry on charitable work. [Paras 9-10 and 14][420-E; 422-G; 423-B, E-F; 424-F-H; 425-A]
Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v Duddukuru Subba
Rao AIR 1957 SC 797 : [1957] SCR 1122 – followed.
1.2 A “specific endowment” can be for either a specific charity or service associated with a particular math or temple, or alternatively, can be for the performance of “any other religious charity”. Some guidance on how to distinguish an endowment to a particular temple and a “religious charity” generally can be found in the Act of 1959 itself. The term “religious charity” has been defined in Section 6(16). The definition also clarifies that a “religious charity” may be distinct from a charity associated with a particular temple, and for a charity to constitute a “religious charity”, there is no requirement for the public charity to be connected with a particular temple or a math. In terms of the statutory definition, for a charity to constitute a “religious charity” under the Act of 1959, two conditions must be met. First, it must be a “public charity” and second, it must be “associated with” a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. If these two conditions are satisfied, a charity is a “religious charity”. Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finite group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character. However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large or an amorphous and fluctuating body of persons incapable of being specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried for the benefit of the ‘devotees’ who visit during certain Hindu religious festivals. The charity is one which benefits the public and the beneficial interest is created in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The “devotees” as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive and therefore, the respondent trust is a public trust. The next criteria that must be fulfilled for a charity to constitute a “religious charity” under Section 6(16) is that the public charity must be associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. Further, for a religious charity to be “associated” with a Hindu festival, the work of the charity must be “connected with” or “in relation to” the festival. The test is not whether the particular temple or authority administering the festival exercises any control over the activities of the charity. Where there exists a nexus between the charitable work and the occurrence of the festival, the charity is “associated with” the festival. Where the charity has a “public” character, and is “associated with” a Hindu festival, the charity falls within the definition of “specific endowment” under Section 6(19) of the Act of 1959. [Paras 15, 16, 18 and 19][425-B, C, E; 426-C-G; 427-F-G; 429-A]
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S P Sahi [1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 583 – followed.
Commr, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar AIR 1965 SC 1916: [1965] 3 SCR 168; K S Soundararajan v. Commr of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (2016) 15 SCC 597: [2015] 10 SCR 176 – relied on.
1.3 In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of Sri Renganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals. The “devotees” as the ultimate beneficiaries of the charity are not an identifiable group of individuals, but constitute an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The “devotees” as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive. The respondent trust is a public trust. The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum. The festivals are Hindu religious festivals and the use of the expression “devotees” indicates that there exists a direct nexus and association between the public charity described in the Deed of Settlement and the Hindu religious festivals. Reference to “devotees” in the Deed of Settlement also indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. The charity which is described in the Deed of Settlement is a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival. The charity is a “religious charity” under Section 6(16). Where money (or property) is endowed for the performance of a religious charity, a “specific endowment” as defined in Section 6(19) is created. Therefore, the first respondent trust is a “specific endowment” under the Act of 1959. [Para 20][429-B-F]
M J Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn (2019) 8 SCC 689 : [2019] 11 SCR 1125 – relied on.
1.4 The Deed of Settlement did not create a specific endowment in favour of the appellant. However, the activities of the first respondent trust do satisfy the definition of a “religious charity” under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the specific endowment created by the Deed of Settlement is not in favour of the appellant idol but an endowment to a religious charity. The Deed of Settlement does create a “specific endowment” as regulated by the Act of 1959. The specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the “religious charity” as understood under the Act of 1959. Section 108 of the Act of 1959 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to try matters regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1959. In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court. Any dispute with respect of administration or management of religious institutions is governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable as under Section 34 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land by the first respondent. [Para 22][430-C, D, F; 431-A; 432-A]
1.5 The applicability of Section 3 is restricted to cases where the government has reasons to believe that a Hindu public charitable endowment is being mismanaged. Section 3 empowers the government to cause an inquiry into the affairs of such charitable endowment and in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowment extend the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, absent any such allegations or the Government having any reasons to believe that the trust is being mismanaged, the first respondent cannot place reliance upon Section 3 to exclude itself from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1959. As long as there exists a “specific endowment” as defined in Section 6(19), the provisions of the Act of 1959 will apply to first respondent. In the present case, the specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the “religious charity” as understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the first respondent. The order of the Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras is set aside. In consequence, the suit filed by the first respondent shall stand dismissed. [Paras 23, 24][432-C-F]
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.