THE IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOINT COMMISSIONER versus PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM ANANDHANA TRUST, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND ORS. on 19 February 2020

[2020] 10 S.C.R.

ATHE IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REPRESENTED BYITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOINT COMMISSIONER

v.

PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEEBAND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 9492 Of 2019)

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD ANDCAJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 – ss.6(16), 6(19), 34, 108 – Person purchased property forperforming charitable work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamysanctum – On a portion, a Stone Mandapam was constructed forDthe deity of Sri Renganathaswamy, to invite and receive its blessingsduring Hindu festival months – He executed a Deed of Settlementinter alia prohibiting the trustees from sale/mortgage of the property– First respondent-trust filed suit seeking permission for sale of theproperty leaving aside the area consisting the ‘Stone Mandapam’–Suit decreed – Judgment upheld – Appellant filed second appeal,Edismissed by High Court – Held: Deed of Settlement must beexamined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor –Settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of theproperty and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activitiesat the suit property – Deed of Settlement created an endowment forFcharitable purposes – Charity described in the Deed of Settlementis a religious charity u/s.6(16) – First respondent trust is a specificendowment under the 1959 Act – As long as there exists a specificendowment defined in s.6(19), the provisions of the 1959 Act willapply to first respondent – s.108 bars the jurisdiction of civil courtsto try matters regulated by 1959 Act – Thus, suit filed by firstGrespondent is not maintainable as u/s.34, the Commissioner is theappropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land – Orderof High Court set aside – Suit filed by first respondent dismissed –Trust.

H

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,1959 – s.6(19) – Specific endowment – Held: A specific endowmentcan result from the allocation of either property or money (or both)which can be for either a specific charity or service in a particularmath 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: Wherethe beneficiaries of a trust/charity are limited to a finite group ofidentifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character– However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large oran amorphous, fluctuating body of persons incapable of beingspecifically 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

Conclusion

HELD: 1.1 The existence of a specific endowment is aquestion to be determined in the light of the material terms usedin the Deed of Settlement. The nature of the instrument must beascertained on a fair and reasonable construction of the Deedconsidered as a whole. Section 6(19), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 defines a specificendowment. A specific endowment can result from the allocationof either property or money (or both). Further, the allocation ofthe property or money can be for either a specific charity or servicein a particular math or temple. Alternatively, it can be for theperformance of “any other religious charity”. The term “endow”means to give or bequeath a thing, property or otherwise. Wherethe text of the deed purports to divest the property from thesettlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the property hasbeen endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not beabsolute towards the charitable purpose and may reserve some

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aportion of the property or resultant income from the property forthe legal heirs of the settlor. The Deed of Settlement must beexamined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor.Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirelyfor a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created. Inthe present case, the Deed of Settlement creates an absoluteBprohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage of the suitproperty. With respect to the legal heirs, the Deed of Settlementcreates an obligation on the settlor’s legal heirs to continue thecharitable activities at the suit property out of their businessincomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and hisClegal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation ofthe charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of theendowment was to carry on charitable work. [Paras 9-10 and14][420-E; 422-G; 423-B, E-F; 424-F-H; 425-A]

Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v Duddukuru SubbaDRao AIR 1957 SC 797 : [1957] SCR 1122 – followed.

1.2 A “specific endowment” can be for either a specificcharity or service associated with a particular math or temple, oralternatively, can be for the performance of “any other religiouscharity”. Some guidance on how to distinguish an endowment toEa particular temple and a “religious charity” generally can befound in the Act of 1959 itself. The term “religious charity” hasbeen defined in Section 6(16). The definition also clarifies that a“religious charity” may be distinct from a charity associated witha particular temple, and for a charity to constitute a “religiouscharity”, there is no requirement for the public charity to beFconnected with a particular temple or a math. In terms of thestatutory definition, for a charity to constitute a “religious charity”under the Act of 1959, two conditions must be met. First, it mustbe a “public charity” and second, it must be “associated with” aHindu festival or observance of a religious character. If theseGtwo conditions are satisfied, a charity is a “religious charity”.Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finitegroup of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a privatecharacter. However, where the beneficiaries are either the publicat large or an amorphous and fluctuating body of persons incapableof being specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a publicH

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST

character. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement statesthat the charity is to be carried for the benefit of the ‘devotees’who visit during certain Hindu religious festivals. The charity isone which benefits the public and the beneficial interest is createdin an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The “devotees”as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive and therefore, therespondent trust is a public trust. The next criteria that must befulfilled for a charity to constitute a “religious charity” underSection 6(16) is that the public charity must be associated with aHindu 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 relationto” the festival. The test is not whether the particular temple orauthority administering the festival exercises any control overthe activities of the charity. Where there exists a nexus betweenthe charitable work and the occurrence of the festival, the charityis “associated with” the festival. Where the charity has a “public”character, and is “associated with” a Hindu festival, the charityfalls within the definition of “specific endowment” under Section6(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. 2SCR 583 – followed.

Commr, Madras Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowments v. Narayana Ayyangar AIR 1965 SC 1916:[1965] 3 SCR 168; K S Soundararajan v. Commr ofHindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (2016) 15SCC 597: [2015] 10 SCR 176 – relied on.

1.3 In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states thatthe charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” ofSri Renganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai GajendraMoksham and Padi Eighteen festivals. The “devotees” as theultimate beneficiaries of the charity are not an identifiable groupof individuals, but constitute an uncertain and fluctuating body ofpersons. The “devotees” as a class of beneficiaries are notdefinitive. The respondent trust is a public trust. The activitiesof the first respondent trust have a connection with ChithiraiGajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity

ABC

D

EF

G

H

Ais to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of SriRenganathaswamy sanctum. The festivals are Hindu religiousfestivals and the use of the expression “devotees” indicates thatthere exists a direct nexus and association between the publiccharity described in the Deed of Settlement and the Hindureligious festivals. Reference to “devotees” in the Deed ofBSettlement also indicates that the endowment is not of a secularnature. The charity which is described in the Deed of Settlementis a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival. Thecharity is a “religious charity” under Section 6(16). Where money(or property) is endowed for the performance of a religious charity,Ca “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 & CharitableEndowment Admn (2019) 8 SCC 689 : [2019] 11 SCRD1125 – relied on.

1.4 The Deed of Settlement did not create a specificendowment in favour of the appellant. However, the activities ofthe first respondent trust do satisfy the definition of a “religiouscharity” under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the specific endowmentEcreated by the Deed of Settlement is not in favour of the appellantidol but an endowment to a religious charity. The Deed ofSettlement does create a “specific endowment” as regulated bythe Act of 1959. The specific endowment created is an absoluteendowment in favour of the “religious charity” as understoodunder the Act of 1959. Section 108 of the Act of 1959 bars theFjurisdiction of civil courts to try matters regulated by theprovisions of the Act of 1959. In view of Section 108, no suit orlegal proceedings in respect of the administration or managementof a religious institution or any other matter for determining ordeciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted inGa civil court. Any dispute with respect of administration ormanagement of religious institutions is governed in accordancewith the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, thesuit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable as underSection 34 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate H

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUSTauthority to approve the proposed sale of land by the firstrespondent. [Para 22][430-C, D, F; 431-A; 432-A]

ABC

1.5 The applicability of Section 3 is restricted to cases wherethe government has reasons to believe that a Hindu publiccharitable endowment is being mismanaged. Section 3 empowersthe government to cause an inquiry into the affairs of suchcharitable endowment and in the interests of the administrationof such charitable endowment extend the provisions of the Act of1959. In the present case, absent any such allegations or theGovernment having any reasons to believe that the trust is beingmismanaged, the first respondent cannot place reliance uponSection 3 to exclude itself from the applicability of the provisionsof 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 willapply to first respondent. In the present case, the specificendowment 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 thefirst respondent. The order of the Single Judge of the MaduraiBench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras is set aside. Inconsequence, the suit filed by the first respondent shall standdismissed. [Paras 23, 24][432-C-F]

D

E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9492of 2019.

G

From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2016 of the MaduraiBench of the Madras High Court in S.A. (MD) No. 438 of 2006.

Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv., V. Prabhakar, Ms. Jyoti Parasher,N. J. Ramchandar, S. Rajappa, Advs. for the Appellant.

H

AArunava Mukherjee, Shangar Murali, Anand Sathiyaseelan, BalajiSrinivasan, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.B1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 1 December 2016 ofa Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature atMadras.The High Court dismissed the appellant’s second appeal andupheldthe judgment dated 31 August 2005 of the Principal District Judge,Tiruchirapalli and the decree dated 10 November 2004 of the SecondAdditional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, permitting the firstCrespondent to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth respondent.

2. The first respondent is a trust represented by its ManagingTrustee. The second and third respondents are members of the firstrespondent. The suit property was originally purchased on 2 June 1887by Thoppulan Chettiar. On a portion of the property, he constructed aD‘Stone Mandapam’ for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy. During theHindu festival months, he used to invite the deity of Sri Renganathaswamyand receive its blessings. In addition, Thoppulan Chettiar also conductedother charitable activities at the suit property for the benefit of thedevotees, namely supplying drinking water and millet porridge for threeEdays during the Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals fromthe “Mahimai” fund (God’s account), which was established from hisgranary business. After fourteen continuous years of carrying onthesecharitable activities, on 8 July 1901, Thoppulan Chettiar executed a Deedof Settlement, prohibiting the future sale or mortgage of the suit propertyand directing his descendants to continue carrying out these charitableFactivities upon his death from the income of ‘their business’. The relevantclauses of the Deed of Settlement are examined in a later section of thisjudgement.

3. By a lease deed dated 29 April 1978, the suit property wasleased out to Sri Renga Fibre for twenty years. Sri Renga Fibre furtherGsub-let the suit property to various third parties. A portion of the suitproperty admeasuring 2,500 square feet was encroached upon by thirdparties and the first respondent had filed a suit[1] for eviction of theencroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy. Owing to IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventingencroachment, the managing trustees of the first respondent decided tosell the suit property (20,865 square feet) to the fourth respondent, leavingaside 4,135 square feet, where the ‘Stone Mandapam’ was situated.The object of the sale was to use the interest generated from the saleconsideration for carrying out the object of the charity. By an agreementdated 1 February 2001, the first respondent sought to sell land admeasuring20,865 square feet (out of property admeasuring 25,000 square feet) tothe fourth respondent. The present dispute concerns the proposed saleof the 20,865 square feet.

4. The first respondent instituted a suit[2] in 2004 before the SecondAdditional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for saleof the suit property in favour of the fourth respondent and to deposit thesale proceeds in a nationalised bank. The proposed sale was resisted bythe appellant, namely the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented byits Executive Officer(the fourth defendant). It was contended by theappellant that the trust had no right to alienate the property and thatThoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the entire property to the idol for theperformance of charitable activities.The appellant alleged that the firstrespondent is a public religious trust created for carrying out specificcharities and therefore the suit property constituted a specific endowmentas contemplated under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments Act 1959[3]. According to the appellant,underSection 34 of the Act of 1959, only the Commissioner of Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments has the power to grant sanction for alienationof the suit property of a trust and the civil court has no jurisdiction.

5. On 10 November 2004, the Second Additional Subordinate Judgedecreed the first respondent’s suit and held that the Act of 1959 was notapplicable to the first respondent trust as it was a private trust and not apublic trust. The trial judge relied upon the fact that the register ofproperties owned by the appellant made no mention of the suit propertyand held that the Deed of Settlement did not vest the suit property in theappellant. Accordingly, it was held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959had no applicability and the proposed sale could be sanctioned only by acivil court.

2 O S 60 of 2004

3 “Act of 1959”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A6. In appeal, by a judgement dated 31 August 2005, the PrincipalDistrict Judge, Tiruchirapalli upheld the judgment of the trial court.Theappellant preferred a second appeal before the Madras High Court. Byits judgement dated 1 November 2016 the High Court dismissed thesecond appeal, holding that the Deed of Settlement did not create anycharge or encumbrance in favour of the appellant. The High Court heldBthat Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no applicability as the firstrespondent trust is a private trust and not a religious trust and therefore,thecivil court could permit the proposed sale of the property. These findingshave been challenged by the appellant before this Court.

7. Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing onCbehalf of the appellant assailed the judgment of the High Court on thefollowing grounds:

(i) The Deed of Settlement stated that Thoppulan Chettiarhadpurchased the property for the performance of thecharitablework with reference to Sri RenganathaswamyDsanctum. Thoppulan Chettiar raised the deity in the blackstone hall constructed for the said purpose. The suit propertyhad been reserved and allotted for the work of charity andhad therefore lost its secular character;

(ii) According to the Deed of Settlement, during theEGajendraMoksham and Eighteen Padi festivals, water andmillet porridge was to be distributed when the idol is kept inthe aforesaid black stone hall. Hence, a religious charitableendowment had been created and attached with the festivalsof the appellant temple and therefore, dedication of theFproperty for creation of an endowment of a religiouscharacter stood established;

(iii) The charity was to be performed from the income derivedfrom the suit property. If the income was found to be higher,the excess income was to be kept as reserve family fund; G(iv)The trustees were prohibited from selling or mortgagingthe suit property specifically dedicated for the purpose ofthe charity;

(v) The suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable asSection 34 of the Act of 1959 empowers the CommissionerHto sanction any sale of the property governed by the Act of IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

1959. The Section makes it clear that the sanction cannotbe given without the approval of the Government and anysale without the approval would be null and void; and

(vi) The first respondent cannot seek sanction of the civil courtto sell an endowed property as Section 108 of Act of 1959bars a civil suit from being instituted in respect of matterscovered by the provisions of the Act of 1959.

8. Opposing these submissions, Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that:

(i) The provisions of the Act of 1959 are not applicable to thefirst respondent. Under Section 3, the provisions of the Actof 1959 are applicable to charitable endowments only uponthe issuance of a notification by the government on groundsof mismanagement or mala dministration by the trustees.There exists no notification extending the applicability ofthe provisions of the Act of 1959 to the first respondenttrust;

(ii) The charities to be undertaken by the private trust are notconfined to only Hindus. The first respondent is a seculartrust established for the public in general and without anydistinction on grounds of religion, caste or creed;

(iii) The Deed of Settlement does not create any specificendowment in favour of the appellant deity. Theperformance of the public charity is not directed to beperformed in the temple and the charity is to be performedonly at the suit property;

(iv) The management and administration of the first respondenttrust is only dealt with by the lineal descendants of thefounder of the trust. The HR & CE Department neverappointed any trustees and no member of the publicparticipated in the management of the first respondent trust;

(v) The civil court has the jurisdiction in respect of the suit filedby the first respondent seeking permission for the sale ofthe suit property. Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

420SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Awill have no applicability to the first respondent trust as itexempts both public and private charitable endowments;

(vi) The restraint createdin the Deed of Settlement is voidunderSection 10 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.[4] Thetrustees of the first respondent are not able to perform theBcharities on account of encroachments in the suit property.By virtue of the doctrine of cypres, the suit property shouldbe allowed to be sold to the fourth respondent for the purposeof fulfilling the intention of the settlor to carry out the charity;and

(vii) DW5, the assistant superintendent of the temple, admittedCduring his cross-examination that the temple never exercisedany control over the respondent trust and there is nodedication of the suit property in favour of the temple.

The rival submissions fall for consideration.

9. The question that arisesfor our consideration is whether theDDeed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901creates a specific endowment,regulated by the Act of 1959.In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it isnecessary for this Court to determine the nature of the endowment underthe Deed of Settlement. The existence of a specific endowment is aquestion to be determined in the light of the material terms used in theEDeed of Settlement. The nature of the instrumentmust be ascertainedon a fair and reasonable construction of the Deed considered as awhole.The terms of the Deed of Settlement are as follows:

“Settlement Deed

This deed of settlement is made on 8th July of 1901 by ThoppulanFChettiar aged 75, s/o Krishnan Chettiar, Mettu Street, Palakarai,Thiruchirapalli.

The settler purchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule ofproperty out of his own income on 02.06.1887 for the performanceof charity work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy sanctumfor a Rs. 750/- on that from the built sturdy buildings and forGraising Renganathaswamy, in black stone hall. Out of the incomederived from his business in Palakarai and from the yearly incomefrom the farm land, raised Renganathaswamy in the black stonehall during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festival’s and H4 “Transfer of Property Act”

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

for the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has beenerecting water shed and distributing millet porridge for three daysand has been performing this for 14 years. He is still ready tocontinue this till his life time. After his life time, for continuing thischarity work his son T. Ramiah Chetty and his brotherT.Thiruvenkidenchetty, Sivalingam padayachi geethapuramRengapuram M.C.Veeranan alias umman Maniyakaran MaruthaiManiyakaran Geethapuram Rengamaniyakaran’s son AppavuManiakaran T.S.Kasthoori these people asked not to sell ormortgage the said property. Three sons of the settler haveto continue this charity work after the settlor’s life time. Ifany of the 3 is not interested in doing this others should not troublehim.After the three sons should bear the expenses of thesecharity work out of their business. After their life time it shouldbe continued by their heirs and continue to receive the reverence.If the income is higher, they should keep it as family fundafter meeting the expenses. If it is low, they should meetthe expenses out of the family fund.This charity work isnot liable for family debts or the debts incurred by 3 sons.Settlor obtained their consent and signatures of 2 sons mentionedbelow.Stone well farm is reserved for doing charity work.Property allotted for charity work:

Trichy District, Srirangam Sub District, Melur region,Geethapuram, Raghunathpuram South – Lakshmi Ammanakar farm West – Namasivaye Asari farm East – Amma Mandakepadi Punja land kuli 66, Black stone hall on that farm, municipal number440 worth Rs. 3,000/- maintenance of this land and the blackstone hall is being carried out by the settler and after his life timethe said 3 sons should continue to maintain them.”

The following points emerge from the Deed of Settlement:

(i) Thoppulan Chettiar purchased the suit property in 1877 forthe purpose of performing charitable work in reference toSri Renganathaswamy sanctum. In a part of the suit property, A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

a black stone structure was constructed for SriRenganathaswamy. During the Hindu festivals of GajendraMoksham and Aadi, the deity was invited and placed onthe black stone structure and Thoppulan Chettiar used toreceive providence from the deity; B(ii)During the Hindu festivals, Thoppulan Chettiar also erecteda water shed and performed charitable activities ofdistributing millet porridge for the “benefit of thedevotees”who visited the Sri Renganathaswamy sanctumon the suit property. He had been performing the charitiesfor fourteen years prior to the Deed of Settlement; C

(iii) During the lifetime of Thoppulan Chettiar, these charitableactivities were financed out of the “Mahimai” fund (God’saccount), which was replenished by both the settlor’s ownbusiness income and the income arising from the suitproperty; D

(iv) After the settlor’s lifetime, he wished his three sons andtheir descendants to continue this charitable work andcontinue receiving providence from the deity. His three sonswere to bear the expenditure for the charity “out of theirbusiness”. If, after meeting all the expenditure forEundertaking the charity, the heirs possessed excess income,the excess amount was to be transferred to a family fundto be used at a future date for funding the charitable activitiesin case the family income was insufficient; and

(v) There was an absolute prohibition on the sale or mortgageFof the suit property, which was “reserved” and “allotted”for charitable work. Similarly, the family fund could not beused for clearing debts incurred by the three sons.

10. In order to determine whether the Deed of Settlement createsa specific endowment regulated by the Act of 1959, it is necessary toGrefer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 6(19) defines a specificendowment as follows:

“6. (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 religious H

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described inExplanation (1) to clause (17);”

A specific endowment can result from the allocation of eitherproperty or money (or both). Further, the allocation of the property ormoney can be for either a specific charity or service in a particular mathor temple. Alternatively, it can be for the performance of “any otherreligious charity”.

11. During the lifetime of Thoppulan Chettiar, the charitableactivities were financed out of the income arising from the suit property.However, the Deed of Settlement makes no mention of the income arisingout of the suit property and instead creates an obligation on the settlor’slegal heirs to fund the charitable activities out of their own businessincomes. Therefore, in the present case, no question arises of anyendowment of “money” and we only have to deal with the question ofwhether the suit property itself was endowed. Accordingly, we nowanalyse the provisions of the deed and turn to the question of whetherthe suit property was endowed, and if it was, whether such endowmentwas in favour of a specific temple or for the performance of “religiouscharity”.

12. The term “endow” means to give or bequeath a thing, propertyor otherwise.Where the text of the deed purports to divest the propertyfrom the settlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the propertyhas been endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not be absolutetowards the charitable purpose and may reserve some portion of theproperty or resultant income from the property for the legal heirs of thesettlor. The question of whether the settlor intended the religious purposeto be the primary beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the legalheirs of the settlor, or whether the heirs were the primary beneficiariessubject to a charge towards the continuation of the charitable purposemust be determined by reading the settlement deed as a whole.

13. In Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v Duddukuru SubbaRao[5], a Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with the question ofwhether the suit properties were the subject-matter of a public charitabletrust or were merely charged with the obligation to undertake specificcharities. Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice thenwas), speaking for the Court, held:

5 AIR 1957 SC 797

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

A“5. … Now it is clear that dedication of a property to religious orcharitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If thededication is complete, a trust in favour of public religiouscharity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust infavour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour ofthe charity is attached to, and follows, the property whichBretains its original private and secular character. Whetheror not dedication is complete would naturally be a questionof fact to be determined in each case in the light of thematerial terms used in the document. In such cases it isalways a matter of ascertaining the true intention of theCparties; it is obvious that such intention must be gatheredon a fair and reasonable construction of the documentconsidered as a whole. The use of the word “trust” or “trustee”is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but themere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of thematter. Is the private title over the property intended to beDcompletely extinguished? Is the title in regard to the propertyintended to be completely transferred to the charity? The answerto these questions can be found not by concentrating on thesignificance of the use of the word “trustee” or “trust” alone butby gathering the true intent of the document considered as aEwhole...”

14. The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole todetermine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks todivest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a publicFreligious charity is created. In the present case, the Deed of Settlementcreates an absolute prohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage ofthe suit property. The Deed of Settlement provides that, “The settlerpurchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule of property... for theperformance of charity work in reference to Sri RenganathanswamyGsanctum”. The property outlined in the schedule of the Deed of Settlementis described as, “Property allotted for charity work”. With respect to thelegal heirs, the Deed of Settlement creates an obligation on the settlor’slegal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property out oftheir business incomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himselfand his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation ofH

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of theendowment was to carry on charitable work.The Deed of Settlementobligates the legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suitproperty.

15. Having established that the Deed of Settlement created anendowment for charitable purposes, we now turn to whether theendowment was a “specific endowment” as defined under Section 6(19)ofthe Act of 1959. As noted above, a “specific endowment” can be foreither a specific charity or service associated with a particular math ortemple, or alternatively, can be for the performance of “any other religiouscharity”. Some guidance on how to distinguish an endowment to aparticular temple and a “religious charity” generally can be found in theAct of 1959 itself. The term “religious charity” has been defined in Section6(16) as follows:

“6. (16) “religious charity” means a public charity associated witha Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether itbe connected with a math or temple or not;”

The definition also clarifies that a “religious charity” may be distinctfrom a charity associated with a particular temple, and for a charity toconstitute a “religious charity”, there is no requirement for the publiccharity to be connected with a particular temple or a math. In terms ofthe 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 festivalor observance of a religious character.If these two conditions are satisfied,a charity is a “religious charity”.

16. The distinction between a public and private charity was setout by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mahant RamSaroop Dasji v S P Sahi[6]. In that case, the Court had to determinewhether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (1 of 1951) applied toboth public as well as private trusts. It described the difference betweenpublic and private charities as follows:

“6. ...it 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 A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aa public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertainand fluctuating body of persons, either the public at largeor some considerable portion of it answering a particulardescription; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definiteand ascertained individuals or who within a definite timecan be definitely ascertained. The fact that the uncertain andBfluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following aparticular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certainreligious persuasion would not make any difference in the matterand would not make the trust a private trust...”

C

Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finitegroup of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character.However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large or anamorphous and fluctuating body of persons incapable of being specificallyidentifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character. This test hasDbeen consistently followed by subsequent benches of this Court, mostrecently in a three judge Bench decision of this Court in M JThulasiraman v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn[7].In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is tobe carried for the benefit of the ‘devotees’ who visit during certain HinduEreligious festivals. The charity is one which benefits the public and thebeneficial interest is created in an uncertain and fluctuating body ofpersons.The “devotees” as a class of beneficiaries are not definitiveand therefore, the respondent trust is a public trust.

17. The next criteria that must be fulfilled for a charity to constituteFa “religious charity” under Section 6(16) is that the public charity mustbe associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character.The term “associated with” as constitutive of the relationship betweenthe charity and the Hindu festival has been interpreted in a three-judgeBench decision of this Court in Commr, Madras Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowments v NarayanaAyyangar[8], where a fundGwas set up for carrying out charity in relation to feeding Brahminsattending the Sri PrasannaVenkatachalapathiswami shrine on the occasion 7 (2019) 8 SCC 689

8 AIR 1965 SC 1916. Relied upon in M J Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious &HCharitable Endowment Admn (2019) 8 SCC 689.

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of Rathotsavam festival. The question before this Court was whetherthe fund set up for the purpose of feeding the Brahmins was a “religiouscharity” within the meaning of Section 6(13) of the Madras HinduReligious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951. Justice J C Shah,speaking for this Court held:

“5. … The expression “associated” in Section 6(13)of Act 19 of1951 is used having regard to the history of the legislation, thescheme 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 any controlby the authorities who manage or administer the festival.

...

7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of theRathotsavam festival of Sri PrasannaVenkatachalapathiswamishrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and the objectof the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine on theoccasion of this festival. It is not disputed that setting up a Fundfor feeding Brahmins is a public charity. The primary purposeof the charity is to feed Brahmin pilgrims attending theRathotsavam.This public charity has therefore a realconnection with the Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festivalof a religious character, and therefore, it is a religious charitywithin the meaning of Section 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of1951.”

18. For a religious charity to be “associated” with a Hindu festival,the work of the charity must be “connected with” or “in relation to” thefestival. The test is not whether the particular temple or authorityadministering the festival exercises any control over the activities of thecharity. Where there exists a nexus between the charitable work andthe occurrence of the festival, the charity is “associated with” the festival.In a two-judge Bench decision of this Court in K S Soundararajan vCommr of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments[9], this Courthad to determine whether offering food to people on the occasion of adeity passing through a river on a specific festival was a religious charity.

A

BC

DE

F

G

H

AThis Court relied upon the decisions in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji andCommr, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowmentsand held that the abovementioned charity was a religious charity and itwas within the ambit of the High Court to pass orders regarding theframing of a scheme under Section 64 of the Act of 1959.

B19. In a recent decision of this Court in M J ThulasiramanvHindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Administrator[10], thisCourt had to determine whether an inscription on a rock found in the“Bakers Choultry” constituted a “specific endowment” under the Act of1959. The inscription stated that the money from the “Bakers Choultry”must be used to feed certain Brahmins. Justice N V Ramana, speakingCfor a three judge bench of this Court held that the inscription created aspecific endowment. The Court held:

“14. In the present case, the rock inscription in the “BakersChoultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry, providesfor the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefitsDthe “public”, in line with the holding of the aforementionedConstitution Bench decision of this Court.

15. Further, the rock inscription specifically states that the charityof feeding the Brahmins is to be done at the time of specificreligious festivals viz. “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” whichEis held in the Mylapore temple, and the festival in SriThiagarajaswami temple, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai …

16. As such, the public charity in the rock inscription, beingassociated with a religious festival, constitutes a religiouscharity as defined under the Act.F

17. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act,the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money whichhas been endowed for the performance of a religious charity.Following our holding that the rock inscription providesfor a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that moneyGhas been endowed for the performance of the same for it toconstitute a specific endowment under the Act.”

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The decision of the three judge bench in M J Thulasiramanmakes it abundantly clear where the charity has a “public” character,and is “associated with” a Hindu festival, the charity falls within thedefinition of “specific endowment” under Section 6(19) of the Act of1959.

20. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that thecharity is to be carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of SriRenganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai Gajendra Mokshamand Padi Eighteen festivals. The “devotees” as the ultimate beneficiariesof the charity are not an identifiable group of individuals, but constitutean uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The “devotees” as a classof beneficiaries are not definitive.The respondent trust is a public trust.The Deed of Settlement spells out that the charitable acts carried out bythe settlor:

“during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festival’s andfor the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has beenerecting water shed and distributing millet porridge for three days”

The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection withChithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charityis tobe carried on for the benefit of the “devotees” of SriRenganathaswamy sanctum.The festivals are Hindu religious festivalsand the use of the expression”devotees” indicates that there exists adirect nexus and association between the public charity described in theDeed of Settlement and the Hindu religious festivals. Reference to“devotees” in the Deed of Settlement also indicates that the endowmentis not of a secular nature. The charity which is described in the Deed ofSettlement is a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival.The charity is a “religious charity”under Section 6(16). Applying thereasoning set out in M J Thulasiraman to the facts of the present case,where money (or property) is endowed for the performance of a religiouscharity, a “specific endowment” as defined in Section 6(19) is created.Therefore, the first respondent trust is a “specific endowment” underthe Act of 1959.

21. The appellant in the present case has asserted that thereexisted a specific endowment in its favour. The Deed of Settlementreveals that even though there was no dedication of the suit property inthe name of the appellant, Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the propertyfor the purpose of carrying out the charity. The charity of offering services A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Ato devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visited during particular Hindureligious festivals was of a religious nature. DW 5, the AssistantSuperintendent of the appellant temple, admitted during his cross-examination that the appellant temple did not exercise control over therespondent trust and there is no dedication of the suit property in itsfavour. In these circumstances, it is evident that the Deed of SettlementBdid not create a specific endowment in favour of the appellant. However,as we have seen, the activities of the first respondent trust do satisfy thedefinition of a “religious charity” under the Act of 1959. Therefore, wenote that the specific endowment created by the Deed of Settlement isnot in favour of the appellant idol but an endowment to a religious charity.

C22. Based on the above observations and findings, we find thatthe Deed of Settlement does create a “specific endowment” as regulatedby the Act of 1959.The specific endowment created is an absoluteendowment in favour of the “religious charity” as understood under theAct of 1959.Section 108 of the Act of 1959 bars the jurisdiction of civilDcourts to try matters regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1959.Section 108 provides thus:

“Bar of suits in respect of administration or management ofreligious institutions, etc.—No suit or other legal proceeding inrespect of the administration or management of a religiousEinstitution or any other matter or dispute for determining or decidingwhich provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Courtof Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions ofthis Act.”

In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect ofthe administration or management of a religious institution or any otherFmatter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Actshall be instituted in a civil court. Any dispute with respect ofadministration or management of religious institutions is governed inaccordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case,the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable as under SectionG34[11 ]of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority toapprove the proposed sale of land by the first respondent.

11Alienation of immovable trust property.—(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage andany lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, orgiven or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and voidunless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to theHinstitution :

IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAMANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents hasraised the argument that under Section 3[12 ]of the Act of 1959, theprovisions of the Act are applicable to charitable endowments only upon

Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposedtransaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objectionsand suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received fromthe trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly consider by the Commissioner:Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without theprevious approval of the Government.Explanation.—Any lease of the property above mentioned through for a term notexceeding five years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term (so asto exceed five years in the aggregate), whether subject to any condition or not, bedeemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years.

(2) When according such sanction, the Commissioner may impose such conditions andgive such direction, as he may deem necessary regarding the utilization of the amountraised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage regardingthe discharge of the same within a reasonable period.

(3) A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this section shall becommunicated to the Government and to the trustee and shall be published in suchmanner as may be prescribed.

(4) The trustee may, within three months from the date of his receipt of a copy of theorder, and any person having interest may within three months from the date of thepublication of the order appeal to the Court to modify the order or set it aside.(4-A) The Government may issue such directions to the Commissioner as in theiropinion are necessary, in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of anyimmovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religiousinstitution and the Commissioner shall give effect to all such directions.

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the imams referred to in section 41.

12Power to extend Act to Charitable Endowments.—(1) Where the Governmenthave reason to believe that any Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment is beingmismanaged, they may direct the Commissioner to inquire, or to cause an inquiry to bemade by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, into the affairs of such charitableendowment and to report to them whether, in the interests of the administration ofsuch charitable endowment, it is necessary to extend thereto all or any of the provisionsof this Act and of any rules made thereunder.

(2) The Commissioner or the officer authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall,while making an inquiry under that sub-section, have all the powers of a Civil Courtunder the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for the purposes ofenforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of books, accounts,documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of suchcharitable endowments and shall follow the procedure applicable under the said Codein regard to recording of evidence and hearing of parties.

(3) If, after considering the report of the Commissioner submitted under sub-section(1), the Government are satisfied that such charitable endowment is being mismanagedand that, in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowment, it isnecessary to extend thereto all or any of the provisions of this Act and of any rulesmade thereunder, they may, by notification, extend to such charitable endowment the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe issuance of a notification by the government on grounds ofmismanagement by the trustees. It has been argued that in the presentcase, absent any such notification, the provisions of the Act of 1959 willhave no applicability to the first respondent. However, the abovesubmission cannot be accepted. The applicability of Section 3 is restrictedto cases where the government has reasons to believe that a HinduBpublic charitable endowment is being mismanaged. Section 3 empowersthe government to cause an inquiry into the affairs of such charitableendowment and in the interests of the administration of such charitableendowment extend the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the presentcase, absent any such allegations or the Government having any reasonsto believe that the trust is being mismanaged, the first respondent cannotCplace reliance upon Section 3 to exclude itself from the applicability ofthe provisions of the Act of 1959. As long as there exists a “specificendowment” as defined in Section 6(19), the provisions of the Act of1959 will apply to first respondent. As shown above, in the present case,the specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour ofthe “religious charity” as understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore,Dthe provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the first respondent.

24. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside theorder of the Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the High Court ofJudicature at Madras. In consequence, the suit filed by the first respondentshall stand dismissed. However, the first respondent is at liberty to adoptEthe prescribed procedure under the Act of 1959.There shall be no orderas to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

said provisions, and thereupon, the provisions so extended shall apply to such charitableFendowment as if it were a specific endowment :Provided that before issuing such a notification, the Government shall publish in the*Fort St. George Gazette, a notice of their intention to do so, specifying the reasons forthe action proposed to be taken by them and fixing a period which shall not be less thantwo months from the date of publication of the notice, for the persons interested in theendowment concerned to show cause against the issue of the notification and considertheir objections, if any.G(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Government may, onapplication made by the trustee of any Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment, orwhere there are more trustees than one, then by those trustees or a majority of them andwith the concurrence of the trustee or trustees making the application, extend, bynotification, to such charitable endowment all or any of the provisions of this Act andof any rules made thereunder, and thereupon the provisions so extended shall apply toHsuch charitable endowment as if it were a specific endowment.