Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. There, the Supreme Court held that the portion of the income from the trust properties which had been directed to be used for religious purposes could reasonably be taken to be one-half of the total income, and the remaining one-half was permitted to be used by the trustees for the purpose of defraying the joint family expenses, etc. The dominant intention of the author in creating the trust was to benefit the members of the family and to see that the properties were not alienated by them for, ever. There was only a partial dedication for religious purposes and, therefore, the properties retained their private and secular character and were only subject to a charge for religious purposes. The provision for the benefit of the trustee and other heirs and relatives failed as it was hit by the rule against perpetuities. But this did not affect the validity of the religious endowment. The transfer of one-half of the properties corresponding to one-half of the income directed to be utilized by the members of the family in contravention of the rule against perpetuities was void and the said one-half of the properties continued to be the properties of the author of the trust notwithstanding the execution of the trust deed. Only one-half of the properties covered by the trust passed on the death of the deceased under Section 5 of the E.D. Act, 1953, and the other half pertaining to religious purposes did not pass, according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court further held that if the terms of the document under which the properties or their income were gifted or bequeathed or settled amount to their complete dedication for religious or charitable purposes, then any part-thereof which was given away by way of gift or bequest or settlement to any person contrary to the rule against perpetuities or the rule against accumulations enured to the benefit of the endowment and became a part of the properties endowed. But, on the other hand, if the dedication was partial, such part which was hit by the rule against perpetuities or the rule against accumulations reverted to the executant of the document or his heirs.

41. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi , where Mr. Justice B.K. Mukherjea observed that the dedication might be either absolute or partial. The property might be given out to an idol or it could be subjected to a charge in favour of the idol. The question whether the idol itself could be considered to be the true beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the heirs or specified relative or the testator for their upkeep or that on the other hand these heirs should be considered to be the true beneficiaries of the property subject to a charge for the upkeep of worship expenses of the idol was a question which could only be settled by a conspectus of the entire provision of the will. But, in that case, the right of residence given to the shebaits did not, it was held, detract from making the dedication an absolute trust. The Supreme Court observed that the right given to the servant did not detract from the absolute character of the dedication. The right in this case, if it be called a right and not a privilege, merely was given as human ministrant to the divine deity.