Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3(iv). The respondents submitted that the petitioner had sold the said property to several third parties without conducting the Water Pandal Charity for more than 25 years. The Release deed dated 20.02.1953, executed by Sankar Narayanan Pillai in favour of Kandasamy Pillai and three others, it has been clearly stated that the property in the said survey number was earmarked for the purpose of Water Pandal Charity and to conduct one day Mandapadi on the eve of Panguni festival at a Sri Pushpavaneswarar temple. Further in “A” register, the property in S.No.101/3 has been mentioned as “Thaneer Pandal charity”. In the resettlement register, it has been stated that the purpose of granting Ryotwari Patta as “Thaneer Pandal charity” subject to the provisions of section 17(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948, which provides that “in all other cases, the holder of the land shall have the same rights in the land and be subject to the same liabilities as the Inamdar of minor service in the Ryotwari village”. The petitioner is only a Water Pandal Charity service holder, but as per the report of the Village Administrative Officer, the petitioner did not conduct any Thaneer Pandal Charity for several decades and therefore the impugned order was passed under section 49(1) of HR&CE Act. Further the Settlement Tahsildar had granted conditional patta, mentioning that this is an “Iruvaram minor inam granted for running the Water Pandal Charity”, and therefore the two persons who are running the Water Pandal Charity are entitled to Settlement Patta in S.No.101/3 subject to the provisions of section 8(2)(ii) read https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis with section 8(5) and Section 21 of the Act. If so then the property is bound by the provision of section 6(5) of HR&CE Act. But based on the Will dated 14.10.1995, the petitioner mutated the revenue records in his name and constructed multi storage building several shops and houses and let out the property for commercial purpose and used the consideration received therefrom for his personal need. The petitioner has sold the property to 3rd parties as against the provisions of section 38 (3) of Act 1963. Further in the “Minor Inam Land B Register Memo” and in the SLR register, the property shown as “Thaneer Pandal Charity”. Therefore, the above property shall not be construed as individual property. The Settlement Patta was issued with a specific condition that the property shall not be alienated and to do Thaneer Pandal charity, and therefore the same is bound by the provisions of HR&CE Act. The contention of the petitioner the charity is purely secular and not religious charity is denied. Under section 6(19) of the HR&CE Act, the “specific endowment” is defined and the same is applicable to the present case and relied on judgment. Therefore, the respondents pray that the Thanner Pandal Charity comes under “specific endowment”, therefore the respondents have power to appoint Fit Person and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
.....
“Before considering that question it is necessary to refer to a contention raised on behalf of the appellants by Mr.T.R.Srinivasan. He contented, that the trust created by Ex.A.1 was a public trust. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the trust was only private in character. Under Ex.A.1 provision is made for the construction of a mandapam on a property of the donor and a mandagappadi was directed to be performed to Sri. Soundararaja Perumal during the time of the festival of the temple. The mandagappadi is not an integral part of the Chitrapournami Festival of the temple which is being conducted every year on the sands of the Vaigai. It is in no way connected with it. The occasion of that festival is taken advantage of to perform the worship under the trust when the Deity would be on its way to or from the temple to Madurai for the festival. Such worship which is familiarly known as Mandagappadi is common in our country. The Deity is invited to stop a while and worship is offered at places where the devotees want to worship it. An endowment for the conduct of such worship cannot be a specific endowment as it is in no way connected with the temple or any of its principal festivals. It is intended only for the benefit of the persons offering worship. Such an endowment being neither for the public nor for the performance of any recognized puja or festival of the temple. In Deoki Nandun V. Muralidhar (1) reported in AIR 1957 SCR 133, the Supreme Court held that in the case of a private trust the beneficiaries would be specific individuals while in the case of a public endowment it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis would be the general public or a class thereof. In the present case, there is no difficulty in finding that the intention of the donor was to secure spiritual benefit to Mooka Konar and his family. I am of opinion that the conclusion of the lower Court that the trust is a private one is correct”.
23. The contention of the petitioner that the water pandal charity will not come within the purview of section 6(5) of the HR&CE Act, but the respondents submitted that the same comes within the purview of the Act. This Court is of the considered opinion that even if the contention of the respondents is accepted, then the respondents ought to have issued notice under section 63 of the HR&CE Act. In the present case the specific plea of the petitioner that the appointment of Fit Person came to his knowledge through one of the tenant and the same is violative of principles of natural justice as held supra. Further the respondents ought to have decided whether the water pandal charity is coming within “religious endowment” or “specific endowment” after conducing enquiry by issuing notice under section 63. It is an admitted fact no such proceedings was conducted under section 63. In the absence of such proceedings then the respondents cannot appoint Fit Person under section 49, hence the appointment of fit person is against the provisions of HR&CE Act and hence the power exercised by the respondents is bad in law as held in R.Shanmugha Sundaram Vs. The Commissioner HR&CE Act reported in 1991-LW-582 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
24. The next contention of the petitioner is that the water pandal charity will not come under the definition of ‘specific endowment’ as stated in section 6(19) of the Act. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder:
“(19) “specific endowment” means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an Inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17)” The provision under section 6(17) is extracted hereunder: