Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty Charities, hereinafter referred to as the charities is one such endowment, founded by Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty in the year 1882. He had set apart his house bearing old No.171, New No.61, Govindappa Naicken St, George Town, for the performance of Thathiarathanal service in "Perumal Temples" at Madras, from which food had to be distributed to the "Desanthiris" in the temples. A slab inscription dated 22.9.1882 was also embedded on the wall of this property to denote the creation of this endowment. Sometime in the year 1969, the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras initiated proceedings under Section 64(1) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to frame a scheme in respect of the charities on account of the mismanagement by the then trustee. The grandson of the founder one C.Ragavalu styling himself as a de facto-trustee also filed an application under Section 63(1) of the Act for a declaration that this endowment was a private trust. Both these matters were heard together by the Deputy Commissioner and while dropping the proceedings under Section 64(1) viz., O.A.No.19 of 1969, he dismissed the application under section 63(a) of the Act holding that the suit trust is s a religious charity. Against this , the aforesaid Sri. Ragavalu Chetty filed an appeal under Section 69(1) of the Act to the Commissioner, HR & CE. This appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner holding that the property is a specific endowment under the Act. Aggrieved by this, the said Ragavalu Chetty, grandson of the founder of the charities filed the statutory suit under Section 70(1) of the Act before the City Civil Court at Madras viz., O.S.No.2114 of 1981. According to him, the trust was purely private. There was no specific direction by the founder to perform the charity in any particular religious institution and further there was no absolute dedication of the property for the performance of any "Kattalai" to make the charity, a specific endowment and therefore, he prayed that the order of the Commissioner, HR & CE, be set aside.

7. From the very language of section 6 (16) according to the learned Single Judge, unless property of money had been endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, there can be no specific endowment. He also in held that the endowment in the instant case was not specific and clean. The learned Single Judge relied on two decisions to arrive at this conclusion Arjun alias R.Umamaheswaran v. The Idol of Sri Kaliyuga Vardarajaperumal, 1982 (II) LW 251; R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Commissioner for HR & CE Madras, 1978 (91) LW 337 and held that no specific endowment was created. In the latter case referred to above and reported in R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Commissioner for HR & CE Madras, 1978 (91) LW 337 the endowment was for the performance of "Abishekam" in Siva Temples in the country. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court held that the endowment was vague and since the endowment was for the performance of the "Abishekam" in any Shiva temple, this endowment would not in a public endowment because the temple authorities could enforce the performance of this service. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal and setaside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

19. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore argued that since what was directed to be performed was Thathiarathani service in Perumal Temples without even specifying the Perumal Temple, the endowment in the instants case cannot be brought within the definition of the "Religious Charity", "Religious Endowment" or "Specific Endowment".

20. In the decision reported in R.Arjunan alias Umamaheswaran v. The idol of Sri.Kaliyuga Varadaraja Perumal, Kallankurichi, 1988 (2) LW 251 referred to by the counsel for the respondent, explanation is given regarding the term "Desantharis". The extract from the relevant judgment is as follows:

"The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment."

23. Since Desantharis the beneficiaries under the suit Charities are incapable of being ascertained, the trust as a public one. As to whether the trust is a specific endowment, it must be granted that the two decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant apply to the instant case. If it can be shown that there is an association with an observance of religious character whether it be connected with a math, temple or not, it would be a religious charities and any property if it is endowment for the performance of any religious charity would be a specific endowment.