Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 18 -

"Endowment", "Religious purpose" and "Specific Endowment" and the same read as under:
"2(23) "Religious endowment" or "endowment"

means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a Hindu religious institution, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity, and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious institution.

(f) any other public religious purpose; 
                        xxx     xxx     xxx

          (26)      "Specific Endowment"              means        any
property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a Hindu religious institution or charitable institution or for the performance of any other charity."

- 19 -

20. In the present case, the plaintiff - Centre is a religious endowment under the meaning of Section 2 (23) the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 as the plaintiff -"Centre" is connected with, to impart, promote propagate the ideals and philosophies and teachings of Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamasa and Swami Vivekananda, comparative theology and universal religion, as practiced and taught by them in their own lives in the widest form and with other objects of the society as enumerated in the Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff - Centre at Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-15. Ex.P-2 - the memorandum of association of Sri Ramakrishna Vivekananda Centre, at Clause No.2, the aims and objects of the society has been enumerated and the same reads as under:

- 31 -
under the 1959 Act, 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"."

32. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and the latter judgment in the case of R.M. Sundaram (stated supra), has held as under:

"29. This decision has referred to an earlier decision in M.J. Thulasiraman v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration, which had examined and elucidated on the words 'endow' and 'endowment' state that they relate to idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. The purpose should be with respect to religion or charity. In our opinion, the said tests are satisfied in the present case and the specific endowment of the suit jewellery as religious charity is established beyond doubt."

35. The Apex Court in the case of R.M. Sundaram stated supra considering the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court at para 30 has held as under:

"30. Therefore, in view of the judgments quoted above and the aforesaid statutory provisions, it must be held that the case of the appellant that there was
- 34 -
no endowment or specific endowment must fail and has no legs to stand on. The dedication of the suit jewellery does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances, especially the uninterrupted and long possession of the suit jewellery by the respondent/Temple. The private character of the jewels had extinguished long back and the appellant has no basis to claim that the suit jewellery was inherited by him from his adoptive parents. The endowment is clearly public in nature and for the purposes of performing religious ceremonies. As confirmed by three courts, with which we are in agreement, the suit jewellery was dedicated for a specific purpose and can only be used during the performance of the religious ceremony during the Adipooram festival."