Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Per contra, Sri.Keerthivas Giri contended that the recitals in Ext.A1 would categorically show that there are many spiritual and other religious purposes for which the income from the property had to be spent, clearly indicating that the property in dispute was not vested in the idols. It is his contention that if at all the recitals in Ext.A1 amounted to a dedication, it could only be a partial dedication of profits and there is no dedication of the corpus.

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is essential to revisit the fundamental principles relating to Hindu religious and charitable endowments. The basic concept of a religious endowment under Hindu law is different from the concept of trust known to English law. Hindus made no distinction between religious and charitable purposes. In otherwords, amongst Hindus, there is no marked distinction between a religious and a charitable endowment. In Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi (AIR 1959 SC

12. According to the principles of Hindu Law, partial dedication is only a charge on the income from the property in favour of the trust. The property retains its secular character and is inherited by natural heirs as any other property (see - M.Dasaratharami Reddi v. D.Subba Rao - AIR 1957 SC 797). The view taken by the Privy Council in Hemanthakumari v. Gauri Shankar (AIR 1941 PC 38) is that a partial dedication may take place not only where a mere charge is created in favour of an idol or other religious object, but also where the owner retains the property himself, but grants the community an easement over it for certain specific purposes, for instance, a bathing ghat.

15. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent contended that on a reading of Ext.A1 in its entirety, it will be evident that there is no dedication of the corpus for religious or charitable purposes. What is directed in Ext.A1 is only the manner of appropriating the profits from certain properties and that should be done strictly adhering to the stipulations therein. The persons in management are liable to account for the income and the expenditure. It is therefore contended that the clauses in Ext.A1 could only create a partial dedication.

19. On a careful scrutiny of Ext.A1, it can be seen that item No.19 in A schedule had been set apart to the share of Kesava Pai (executant No.1). Other properties in A schedule had been set apart to Madhava Pai (executant No.1). It is clear that Madhava Pai was bound to conduct the festivals in the temple by utilising the income from the properties. It has come out in evidence that by certain documents said Madhava Pai and Narayana Pai had assigned the properties to different persons. The court below appreciated the evidence correctly and held that the recitals in Ext.A1 amounted only to a partial dedication for the purpose of spiritual salvation of the parties. Further, the court below rightly discarded the oral evidence of the appellant. PW1 was aged only 24 years at the time of deposition. He is incompetent to speak about the intention of the parties in Ext.A1 which was executed in 1117 ME (1937). PW2 admitted in cross- examination that he has not even seen Ext.A1 document. On going through his testimony, it is evident that he is also not competent to speak about the intention of the executants in Ext.A1. Therefore, it is clear that the oral evidence adduced in this case has no relevance and no weight can be attached to the same. The trial court is right in holding, in the light of the evidence available, that there is only a charge on the properties created by the recitals in Ext.A1 document, that too by a partial dedication. It goes without saying that whoever holds the property could hold it only subject to the charge created. The trial court for valid reasons disallowed the prayers in the suit.