Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Mr. Muthukrishna Aiyar raised a further contention that even, if the " temple " were held to be a distinct and severable object of the dedication,it could only be regarded as a temple for the worship of God as no particular deity is mentioned in the deed and that such an endowment in general terms would be void for uncertainty under the Hindu Law as Hindus worship numerous deities. Reference was made in support of this view to Venkatanarasimharao v. Subbarao (1923) I.L.R. 46 Mad. 300, Chandicharan Mitra v. Hari-boladas (1919) I.L.R. 46 Cal. 951, Phundanlal v. Arya Prithi Midhi Sabha (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 793. The point did not directly arise in the case first mentioned where the question was whether a trust for " the spread of Hindu religion rt was void for uncertainty. In holding that it was, Spencer, J., referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chandicharan Mitra v. Hanbola dass (1919) I.L.R. 46 Cal. 951, where a Division Bench (Fletcher and Cuming, JJ.) laid down that under "the Hindu system of law " a general endowment for the worship of God without giving the name of the deity for whose benefit the endowment was to take effect was void for uncertainty. This proposition Was based on the authority of a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Phundanlal v. Arya Prithi Nidhi Sabha (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 793. That was a case where a person who was building a house intended to instal an idol therein on completion and, meanwhile, executed a deed of endowment in respect of certain other properties belonging to him in favour of " Sri Thakurji of the thakurdwara called after his name," appointing himself as the manager of the properties. Subsequently, however, he was converted to the creed of Arya Samaj and conveyed the properties comprised in the deed of endowment as well as the house to the Samaj. Owing, to the conversion, the donor did not instal any idol in the house which he had intended to convert into a thakurdwara. After his death, the Samaj sued through its president for possession of the properties alleging wrongful dispossession by the defendants who pleaded that the plaintiff derived no title under the later conveyance as the donor had previously dedicated the properties to charity. Overruling the plea the learned Judges (Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J.), observed: