Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendants / respondents respondents would submit that though the property was purchased by the three https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis individuals as Huqdars, the very document itself clearly show that it is purchased for the individual enjoyment and only a specific charge alone has been created and not a specific endowment. According to him, the income from the property was derived only from the palmyrah trees that alone has to be utilized for performing Kattalai. The suit properties in the lands are only sandy land and no income was derived from the suit properties, even then the Kattalai has been performed by the defendants. Besides, Government has also provided Maniyam from time to time to perform the Kattalai. According to him, there is no specific endowment and it is only a charge to perform the 5th day of Kanda Sasti Mandagapadi Kattalai. It is his contention that dedication of the properties is not complete in this matter. The very recital in the sale deed makes it very clear that the property has to be enjoyed absolutely. Therefore, it is his contention that the mere recital to the effect that 5th day of Kanda Sasti Mandagapadi Kattalai to be performed from the income of the property, the same will not amount to complete dedication. At the most it is only a partial dedication for the performance of the Kattalai. Therefore, it is his contention that only the charge was created in favour of the charity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have no right to deal with the properties. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1.Whether the suit properties completely dedicated towards the charity or only a partial dedication?
2. Whether the charge alone is created for the purpose of performing the charity?
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court for declaration and recovery of possession?
4.What other reliefs the parties are entitled to?

34. As referred above, from the construction of the document, the conduct of the parties and recitals found in Exs.A9 and A10, it is seen that the first defendant's parties themselves understood that the property comes within the ambit of HR & CE Act and filed an application for seeking sale of the property and suffered an adverse order, which also reached the finality, therefore, now they https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis cannot turn around and take a stand that the property is not a complete dedication and it is only a partial dedication. It is relevant to note that from the nature of the recitals found in the documents viz., Ex.A9 and A10 referred above and the very purchase itself made by the Trustees of the 5th day of Kanda Sasti Mandagapadi Kattalai, it can be easily held that the parties are intended to dedicate the title completely only for the purpose of charity.

35. In M.Dasaratharami Reddy Vs. D.Subba Rao reported in AIR 1957 SC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“Dedication of a property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character.