Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Now it is clear that dedication of a property for 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 attached to, and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document.
The 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 a charity is created. If the dedication is partial, trust in favour of a 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. Whether or not a dedication is complete is a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document if the dedication was made under a document. In such a case it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties. Such an intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication.
(1) Endowment is the dedication of property by gift or device to religious or charitable uses; (2) An endowment must be certain both as to the subject and the object; (3) A dedication of property to an endowment may be partial or complete; (4) It is partial when there is merely a charge or trust created; (5) It is complete when the property is dedicated absolutely and no person has any beneficial interest therein.
As to what is a religious and charitable endowment, it is then stated:
(1) A religious endowment is one which has for its object the establishment, maintenance or worship, of an idol or deity, or any object or purpose subservient to religion; (2) A charitable endowment is one which has for its object the benefit of the public or of mankind.

25. Plaintiff claims that all the A schedule items, 13 in number and which are wet lands, have been endowed to the temple, and that trustees were managing the properties for the benefit of the temple. Regarding the trusteeship of this temple, it is in evidence as found in Ex. A17, that Velappa Mudali was a trustee of the suit temple from 1884 to 1903, and his second son Sabapathy through his first wife was a trustee from 1904 to 1912. Then from 1913 to 1948 one Duraiswamy Mudali, son of Veerabadra Mudali was a trustee, and from 1949 to 1973, D.W.I, the first defendant had been a trustee. Defendants 2 and 3 being the brothers of the first defendant, have been impleaded, because item No. 10 is in the possession of second defendant, and item No. 12 is claimed by the third defendant as a cultivating tenant. All the other items are in the immediate possession and enjoyment of the first defendant. Along with P.W. 1 Chockalinga Mudaliar, one C. Sambandha Mudaliar was also co-opted as trustees, when the first defendant was a trustee during the period from 1949 to 1973. The suit having been laid by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, listing 13 items of landed properties in A Schedule which are wet lands, it has to be seen as to whether they have been dedicated to the temple partially or totally, or as claimed by defendants, only 'kattalais' have been created, and whether the properties except item No. 10, belong absolutely to first defendant and item No. 10 to the second defendant. The trial Court for a convenient understanding of the various documents filed, had divided the properties into different groups. (26) Items 1 and 7 have been dealt with together, each one of them of an extent of 78 cents in S. No. 221/2 and 223/1 respectively in Pillayarkuppan Village. In the plaint, it is stated that the origin of these properties is not known. Whereas in the written statement, it is claimed that a specific endowment under a will dated 14-1-1914 had been made, but the will had not been marked in the suit. Defendants state that a specific endowment had been made by a will of Velappa Mudali dated 14-1-1914, but they have not filed the said will in the suit. It had been filed in O.A. No. 6 of 1974 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras, for enquiry. Having filed it in the proceedings under Exs. B3 to B6, as to what prevented defendants from filing a copy of it is not satisfactorily explained. It is unregistered will executed by a person who is not an ancestor of defendants. He was never a trustee of the temple. It being an unregistered will, Plaintiff could not have applied for a copy and filed, it, nor a copy of it was given when the matter was pending in O.A. D.W. 1, the first defendant is admittedly a Village Munsif in Pillayar Kuppam. He admits that it was written therein that the property had been given for Then he would state that Velappa Mudaliar was the son of Sankara Vedagiri Mudaliar, and that he was his grand-father's son-in-law. Therefore, on the admission made by him that the property had been given for the general maintenance of the temple, and having not put forth a claim that any residue of the income could be utilised by the legatee, and no evidence having been let in as to what was the income derived therefrom and how much alone had been spent on the maintenance of the temple; this is a property, which had not been inherited by defendants as of right by succession. When defendants have not filed any document, as held by the Privy Council, in Sankaranarayana v. Board of Commrs. (1947)2 M.L.J. 315 : A.I.R. 1948 P.C. 25, other documents can be looked into.