Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

ficiaries. There appears to be nothing illegal in such a dedication.

94. It is settled law that an endowment can validly be created in favour of an idol or temple without the performance of any particular ceremonies provided the settlor has clly and unambiguously expressed his intention in that behalf, vide AIR 1957 SG 133, Jai Dayal v. Dewan Ram Saran Das, AIR 1938 Lah 686 and Deeplal v. Parashwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya Mahamantri Shri Gulabchand, AIR 1956 Raj 171. We have already held that the intention of the donor was to make a gift to Radha Swami Dayal for the benefit of the Satsangis of the Dayal Bagh group. By executing the memorandum (Ext. 8) Sad Sahabji Manaraj bad clly and unambiguously divested himself of entire interest in the money donated. Both these conditions were satisfied. The purpose was religious and charitable. We, therefore, see no reason why the dedication should not be held to be valid even though it may be said that Radha, Swami Dayal is not a juristic person and, therefore, incapable of accepting the gift. The provisions of the Transfer of Property Act where acceptance is also necessary in the case of gift will not apply to endowments of public nature (vide Ram Kumar Ram Chandra & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., 58 ITR 721 = AIR 1966 All 100 and AIR 1927 Mad 636 (FB). Such dedications become complete on the proof of the intention of the donor to donate and bis clear intention to divest himself of the property. In our opinion such a gift made to an impersonal deity without any element of uncertainty in any material respect cannot be held to be void merely because Radha Swami Dayal was an impersonal deity and incapable of accepting the gift.

(In the case of Chandi Charan Mitra, ILR 46 Cal 951 = (AIR 1919 Cal 199) also the endowment was held to be void for uncertainty.)

97. In our opinion the observations made in the case of Bankey Lal, ILR 53 All 710 = (AIR 1932 All 244) and quoted above do not help the appellant's case because they speak of a general endowment intended to be for the benefit of the impersonal deity. In such a hypothetical case there can be no doubt that the gift would be void for uncertainty as no ascertained section of the public could be said to be the beneficial owner of the trust meant to be created as a result of the endowment. It has to be seen that all that was observed in the case of Bankey Lal, ILR 53 All 710 = (AIR 1932 All 244), was that such gifts would be void for uncertainty. In cases where the trustee in whom the property would vest, the charitable object of the trust and the beneficiaries of that trust could be ascertained without any difficulty, it cannot be said that the gift would be void for uncertainly.