THULASIRAMAN AND ANOTHER versus THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER on 3 September 2019

[2019] 11 S.C.R. 1125

M. J. THULASIRAMAN AND ANOTHER

v.

THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLEENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER

(Civil Appeal No.4676 of 2010)

SEPTEMBER 03, 2019

[N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDARAND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959:

s. 6(16) and (19) - Institution in question - Nature of -Whether a private property or 'specific endowment' - Held: Asper the evidence (rock inscription), the public charity describedtherein constitutes a religious charity - Thus it creates a 'specificendowment' as specified u/s. 6(19) - Therefore, the property inquestion constitutes a specific endowment and is not a privateproperty.

Words and Phrases:

'Specific endowment', 'religious charity' - Meaning of, inthe context of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitableendowments Act, 1959.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A “specific endowment” means any property ormoney endowed for the performance of any specific service orcharity in a math or temple or for the performance of any otherreligious charity. In the present case there is no question ofperforming the service in the temple or a math, the endowmentin the present case must fall under the second category, i.e., itmust be for the performance of a religious charity, to be aspecific endowment. [Para 10] [1131-F]

2. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a publiccharity associated with Hindu festival or observance of areligious character. The second part of Section 6(16) of the Tamil

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ANadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1959clarifies that there is no requirement for the public charity tobe connected with a temple or a math. The phrase “publiccharity” has not been specifically defined under the Act. Thedistinction in Hindu law between religious endowments whichare public and those which are private is that in a public trustBthe beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuatingbody of persons. The fact that the uncertain and fluctuating bodyof persons is a section of the public following a particularreligious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religiouspersuasion would not make any difference in the matter andCwould not make the trust a private trust. [Paras 11, 12] [1132-A-D]

Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC951 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 583 - followed.

3. In the present case, the rock inscription in theDinstitution in question which governs the functioning of theinstitution provides for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearlya charity which benefits the “public”. The rock inscriptionspecifically states that the charity of feeding the Brahmins is tobe done at the time of specific religious festivals, viz.,E“Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which is held in the Mylaporetemple, and the festival in Sri Thiagarajaswami temple,Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. As such, the public charity described inthe 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]FThe Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar andOrs. AIR 1965 SC 1916 : [1965] SCR 168 - reliedon.

4. Under Section 6(19) of the Act, the definition of “specificGendowment” includes any money that has been endowed for theperformance of a religious charity. As it is held that the rockinscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient toshow that money has been endowed for the performance of thesame for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act.H[Para 16] [1133-C]

M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION

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 isclear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing ordedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for somepurpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with respectto religion or charity. [Para 17] [1133-D-E]

Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Deputy CharityCommissioner 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 providesfor the utilization of money from the institution in question forthe purposes of performing the charitable activity of feedingBrahmins during the specified religious festivals. As such, it isclear that the rock inscription creates a “specific endowment”as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls withinthe ambit of the Act. [Para 17] [1133-E-F]

7. On perusal of the inscription, it cannot be said that therock inscription did not constitute a specific endowment as thesame was vague, secular in nature and did not result in anydivestment of title. The rock inscription clearly stipulates thefestivals during which the activity of feeding of Brahmins shouldbe conducted. Not only are these festivals Hindu festivals, butthe reference to "Brahmins" in the rock inscription itself clearlyindicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. [Para21] [1134-E-G]

M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR1966 SC 653 : [1966] SCR 643 - relied on.

8. The contents of the rock inscription are also sufficientto hold that there has been a valid divestment. The rockinscription clearly indicates that the institution is to be managedby the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds forthe benefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that themanagers do not have any power of alienation with respect tothe institution. [Para 22] [1135-D-E]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had beenparty to earlier proceedings, before the Charity authorities andthe 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 ultimatelyBwithdrew the application before the Deputy Commissionerwherein he made the said pleading, it is quite disingenuous ofhim to have subsequently filed an application before theCommissioner claiming the same property to be his personalproperty. [Para 23] [1135-F-G]

CK.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v. Commissioner ofHindu 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, AIRD1953 Madras 407 ; M.AR.AR.RM.AR. RamanathanChettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious andCharitableEndowments, Madras (1978) 91 LW 337 -referred to.

Case Law ReferenceE

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2008 of the HighHCourt of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000.

M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION

R. N. Keswani, Ram Lal Roy, Advs. for the Appellants.

B. Vinodh Kanna, R. Nedumaran, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N. V. RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.11.2008,passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No.128 of 2000, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section70(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable EndowmentsAct, 1959 (hereinafter "the Act") was dismissed.

2. The short issue before us relates to the nature of the institutioncalled “Bakers Choultry”, situated at No. 23, South Mada Street,Mylapore, Chennai- 600004, as well as the nature of the endowment ithas been burdened with.

3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the year 1987, when theappellants’ predecessor-in-interest filed an application under Section63(a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras for adeclaration to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” is a private propertybelonging to him, with a duty cast on him to perform certain privatecharities. This application was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.1990,and the appeal against the above order, before the Commissioner, HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department,Madras, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1994. Beingaggrieved, the appellants' predecessor-in-interest then filed a civil suit,being Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994, under Section 70(1) of the Act,challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and theCommissioner. However, this civil suit also came to be dismissed videjudgment dated 30.03.1999. An appeal being Appeal Suit No. 128 of2000 was thereafter filed before the High Court of Judicature atMadras, wherein due to the demise of the appellants’ predecessor-in-interest the present appellants were brought on record as his legalrepresentatives. The High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugnedjudgment dated 27.11.2008. The appellants thereafter filed the presentCivil Appeal by way of Special Leave. This Court, vide order dated14.05.2010, directed that status quo as to possession is to be maintainedduring the pendency of this appeal.

A

B

C

DE

FG

H

A

A4. The learned counsel for the appellants, in challenging theconcurrent findings of the Courts below, submitted that in the facts ofthe present case the Courts were incorrect in holding that a specificendowment existed with respect to the “Bakers Choultry’, particularlyone relating to a religious purpose. The learned counsel has placedreliance upon two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,Bviz., Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board,Madras v. Vinayakar Arudra Tiruppani Sabha, AIR 1953 Madras407 and R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. TheCommissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,Madras, (1978) 91 LW 337, to support his submission that the rockCinscription being vague, secular in nature, and not resulting in anydivestment of title thereby could not be considered a “specificendowment” under the Act.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that the appellants were, in effect, challenging four concurrentDfindings by the Courts below and the respondent authorities. Hesubmitted that the arguments being raised by the appellants were alreadycanvassed before the High Court, which had dismissed the appellantsappeal by giving cogent reasoning vide the impugned judgment whichdoes not merit any interference. The counsel for the respondents furthersubmitted that the stone inscription found inside the choultry would revealEthat a specific endowment has been created for the purpose of feeding“brahmins” and poor people, during certain festivals, and wouldtherefore be an endowment which falls under the ambit of the Act.Lastly, the counsel submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of theappellants had taken part in earlier proceedings relating to same propertyFwherein he had claimed the property to be trust property, and as such,could not now claim the same to be private property.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.

7. It is pertinent to note that the counsels for both parties, forthe most part, confined their arguments to the interpretation of a rockGinscription which is found in the “Bakers Choultry”, allegedly of theyear 1834, to substantiate their respective claims. The rock inscriptionadmittedly states the following:

“all of us who do the bakery business shall hereditarily utilize thebalance for the feeding of Brahmins during the festivals ofHThiruvotriyur and Mylapore and for other proper charity expenses and those who conduct the charities of the aforesaid choultriesshall have no right whatsoever to alienate the said choultries andanything belonging to them by way of usufuctuary mortgage, gift,sale, etc., but they shall have power to conduct the charities ofthe choultries appropriately, to support Brahmins therein as theydeem fit and receive offerings.”

8. The question that arises for our consideration in the presentcase is to interpret the above inscription and determine whether thesame amounts to a specific endowment as defined by the Act, or not.

9. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to have a look atSections 6(19) and 6(16) of the Act. Section 6(19) of the Act definesthe phrase “specific endowment” and is as extracted below:

(19) “specific endowment” means any property or moneyendowed for the performance of any specific service or charityin a math or temple or for the performance of any other religiouscharity, but does not include an inam of the nature described inExplanation (1) to clause (17); xxx Section 6(16) of the Act defines a “religious charity” as below:(16) “religious charity” means a public charity associated withHindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether itbe connected with a math or temple or not;

10. From the above, it is clear that a “specific endowment” meansany property or money endowed for the performance of any specificservice or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of anyother religious charity. As it is admitted that in the present case thereis no question of performing the service in the temple or a math, theendowment 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 specificendowment.

11. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a public charityassociated with Hindu festival or observance of a religious character.The second part of Section 6(16) of the Act clarifies that there is norequirement for the public charity to be connected with a temple or amath.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A12. While the phrase “public charity” has not been specificallydefined under the Act, some guidance as to its interpretation can bederived from a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in MahantRam Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 951, wherein the Court,while determining whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (1 of1951) applied to both public trusts as well as private trusts, observedBas follows:

“6. ... [I]t is necessary to state first the distinction in Hindu lawbetween religious endowments which are public and those whichare private. To put it briefly, the essential distinction is that in apublic trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertainCand fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large orsome considerable portion of it answering a particular description;in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertainedindividuals or who within a definite time can be definitelyascertained. The fact that the uncertain and fluctuating bodyDof persons is a section of the public following a particularreligious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certainreligious persuasion would not make any difference in thematter and would not make the trust a private trust…”

E

13. In the present case, the rock inscription in the “BakersChoultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry, provides forthe feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefits the“public”, in line with the holding of the aforementioned ConstitutionBench decision of this Court.

F

14. Further, the rock inscription specifically states that the charityof feeding the Brahmins is to be done at the time of specific religiousfestivals, viz., “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which is held in theMylapore temple, and the festival in Sri Thiagarajaswami temple,Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. The phrase “associated with” in the definitionGof religious charity has been interpreted in a three-Judge Bench decisionof this Court, in the case of The Commissioner, Madras HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar andOrs., AIR 1965 SC 1916, which is extracted as below:

“5. … The expression "associated" in Section 6(13) of Act 19of 1951 is used having regard to the history of the legislation, H

the scheme and objects of the Act, and the context in which theexpression occurs, as meaning “being connected with” or“in relation to”. The expression does not import anycontrol by the authorities who manage or administer thefestival.”

15. As such, the public charity described in the rock inscription,being associated with a religious festival, constitutes a religious charityas defined under the Act.

16. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act,the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money that hasbeen endowed for the performance of a religious charity. Following ourholding that the rock inscription provides for a religious charity, it issufficient to show that money has been endowed for the performanceof the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act.

17. While the word “endow”, and the connected word“endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from theirusage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that they relateto the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whetherproperty or otherwise, for some purpose. In the context of the Act, thepurpose is with respect to religion or charity. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar:The Law Lexicon, Second Edn., p. 634, 635; Pratapsinghji N. Desaiv. Deputy Charity Commissioner Gujarat, 1987 Supp. SCC 714,paragraph 8]. In the present case, the rock inscription clearly providesfor the utilization of money from the “Bakers Choultry” for the purposesof performing the charitable activity of feeding Brahmins during thespecified religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock inscriptioncreates a “specific endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) ofthe Act, which falls within the ambit of the Act.

18. The same conclusion was reached by this Court in theNarayana Ayyangar case (supra), wherein a Fund, instituted for thepurposes of feeding Brahmin pilgrims attending the SriVenkatachalapathiswami shrine at Village Gunaseelam on the occasionof the Rathotsavam festival, was stated to be a religious charity. In thatcase, the Court held that:

“7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of theRathotsavam festival of Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

1134SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Ashrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and theobject of the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine onthe occasion of this festival. It is not disputed that setting up aFund for feeding Brahmins is a public charity. The primarypurpose of the charity is to feed Brahmin pilgrims attending theRathotsavam. This public charity has therefore a real connectionBwith the Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festival of a religiouscharacter, and therefore it is a religious charity within themeaning of Section 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of 1951…”

19. Similarly, in the case of K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v.Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments andCOrs., (2016) 15 SCC 597, this Court again dealt with a similar issue.In this case, the Court was required to determine the nature of certaincharities mentioned in a Will, wherein it was stated that persons of thesame caste as the testator would be fed on the occasion of Pangunifestival every year. The Will also provided for the supply of food toDpersons during the day of Chitra Pournami. In this context, the Courtheld that the abovementioned two charities constitute religious charities,and that it was within the ambit of the High Court under the Act topass orders regarding the framing of a scheme for administering thesame.E

20. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for theappellants, that the rock inscription did not constitute a specificendowment as the same was vague, secular in nature and did not resultin any divestment of title, it must be stated that a bare perusal of theinscription would indicate that the first two contentions ought to beFrejected. The rock inscription clearly stipulates the festivals during whichthe activity of feeding of Brahmins should be conducted. Not only arethese festivals Hindu festivals, but the reference to “Brahmins” in therock inscription itself clearly indicates that the endowment is not of asecular nature.G

21. Finally, with respect to the learned counsel for the appellants’submission regarding the absence of divestment of property for theconstitution of a specific endowment, the same would have to berejected. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in the case of M.R. GodaRao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 653, while holdingHthat divestment is necessary, decided on the facts of that case that a

M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION [N.V. RAMANA, J.]

settlement deed which provided for a charge on properties for thepayment of money amounted to a divestment:

“4. There is no dispute that in order that there may be anendowment within the meaning of the Act, the settlor mustdivest himself of the property endowed. To create anendowment he must give it and if he has given it, he of coursehas not retained it; he has then divested himself of it. Did thesettlors then divest themselves of anything? We think they did.By the instrument the settlors certainly divested themselvesof the right to receive a certain part of the income derivedfrom the properties in question. They deprivedthemselves of the right to deal with the properties free ofcharge as absolute owners which they previously were...”

22. In the facts of the present appeal, the contents of the rockinscription are sufficient for us to hold that there has been a validdivestment and to reject the contention of the counsel for the appellants.The rock inscription clearly indicates that the choultry is to be managedby the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds for thebenefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that the managersdo not have any power of alienation with respect to the choultry. Inthe present appeal therefore, as in the case of M.R. Goda Rao Sahib(supra), there has been a clear divestment of the right to receive acertain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar onthe right of the manager to transfer the choultry.

23. Another factor which merits our consideration is the fact thatthe predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been party to earlierproceedings, before the Charity authorities and the Courts, wherein hehad filed pleadings to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” constituteda “specific endowment”. Although the predecessor-in-interest of theapplicant ultimately withdrew the application before the DeputyCommissioner wherein he made the said pleading, it is quitedisingenuous of him to have subsequently filed an application beforethe Commissioner claiming the same property to be his personalproperty.

24. Therefore, taking into consideration the existing law and thefacts of the present case, we hold that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the AB

C

DE

FG

H

Arock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as definedunder the Act, and the same is not the private property of the appellants.The well reasoned judgment passed by the High Court, impugned beforeus, therefore warrants no interference.

25. Appeal is consequently dismissed, with no costs. PendingBapplications, if any, also stand disposed of. Needless to say that thestatus quo granted vide order dated 14.05.2010 stands vacated.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H