Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

49. The point is of peculiar and practical importance in the facts of this case. It will be appropriate here to record that the facts of this case show an absolute dedication and an absolute debuttar. I have already set out the terms of the will on this point earlier in this judgment. Recollecting those terms now it will be clear that really no personal of private benefit as such was reserved for the testator or his family except that the shebaitship was to run along the male heirs of his two adopted sons. But as pointed out by the authorities this was not decisive of the question whether the debuttar was public or private. It is possible to reconcile the distinction between public and private debuttar which has crept into the Hindu law of endowment bv taking the view that where the debuttar is absolute and where the dedication is absolute to the deity, it is always for a public religious purpose because the deity is not a private purpose at all in the Hindu concept. But there may be other kinds of debutter which are known as partial debuttar or where properties are only charged in favour of debaseva. In that case the dedication is not to the deity as such and the deity is neither the donee nor the owner of such properties. In that case the deity is only a beneficiary in the ordinary sense of the term. In such a case the question of private religious trust or private religious purpose may very well arise because either the whole of the income or the whole of the property may not be charged or is only partially dedicated to the deity and in that event that which is public may be exempted and that which is private may come within the fold of taxation. That is one way of justifying the distinction between public and private religious purpose in the Hindu law of debuttar and endowments as at present settled by the reported cases. Pursuing this view a little further it will be necessary to make some more reference to judicial authorities.

100. In discussing the Law on complete and partial dedications, it is held in the case of Menakuru (supra) that the enjoyment of the property inevitably suggests the right to enjoy the property in one's right and this notion is not reconcilable with the theory of complete dedication of property in favour of charity. In a judgment delivered by Kapur J., in the case of Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari v. Agasthes-waraswami Varu, where a question arose as to whether a grant to the trustees was made individually to them, it was held that as the lands were endowed for the purpose of 'Kalyan Utsabam and for other purposes, they indicate "benefit of the Idol" and therefore constitute a specific trust. It is submitted that the theory of Idol's benefit is not accepted in Deokinan-dan's case (supra). Hidayatullah J., in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwala v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi held that the properties belonged not to any 'individual' but to the Deity (Sawaymbhu) as owner, obviously drawing a distinction between a Deity and an 'individual'.