Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in A.S.No. 720/1999 would submit that there is no complete dedication in favour of the plaintiff's deity by Ex.A1-will as it does not contain any word of dedication. Further, unless the entire income of the property sought to be dedicated is to be utilised, Ex.A1 cannot be construed as a complete dedication. Even the recital of Ex.A1, wherein, the Testator has stated that after his life time, his daughter Mariyaye Ammal and her legal heirs are entitled to enjoy the suit property, clearly goes to show that the Testator never intended to benefit the deity with the entire income of the suit property. The learned trial Judge failed to note that unless there is a complete divestment and transfer of ownership from the donor to the donee, complete dedication cannot be implied. The trial Court also failed to note that whether the deed of dedication is complete or partial must be settled by conspectus of all the provisions of the deed. If the intention of the deed is to create a charge in favour of the deity as in this case, the dedication is only partial. While considering the present document Ex.A1, it is not expedient to construe the terms of one deed to the terms of another or to lay down a general rules applicable to the construction by settlements varying in terms.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999

9. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the Testator and for that purpose, it has to take into consideration all the terms of the deed. The learned trial Judge failed to see that if it appears on a review of all the terms that after endowing the property in favour of a religious institution or a deity, the surplus is either expressly or by implication retained with the Testator or his heirs, partial dedication may be readily inferred, notwithstanding apparently comprehensive words of the deposition in favour of the deity. In the above context, the trial Court failed to note that the items referred to in Ex.A1 being done without any obstacle and the expenses never exceeded the amount referred in Ex.B1. The trial Court also failed to see that in Ex.A1, there is no statement that the property in question has been completely dedicated and even there is no mention as to how much amount has to be spent and there is no statement as to what is to be done to the surplus. From the recital of Ex.A1, one cannot come to the conclusion about the complete dedication. From the document, it cannot even be called as a kattalai or specific endowment, since there is no kattalai register or property register to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.700 & 720/1999 show that the property was dedicated to the deity either in the name of kattalai or in the name of specific endowment. The charity mentioned in Ex.A1 is not a charity connected with the plaintiff's temple or religious charity and Ex.A1 does not create Public or Private Religious Charitable Trust and in such a case, the Trust Act is applicable and permission granted is valid.