Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) for the performance of pujas in the temple, or (b) for the performance of certain festivals in the temple, or (c) for the performance of Archanas to the deity in the name of the donor. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer to the following judgments:

(i) Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v. Duddukuru Subba Rao [1957 AIR 797 : 1957 SCR 1122] “......Now it is clear that 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 public religious charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the 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 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. In such cases it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties; it is obvious that such intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. The use of the word "trust" or "trustee" is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but the mere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of the matter. Is the private title over the property intended to be completely extinguished ? Is the title in regard to the property intended to be completely transferred to the charity ? The answer to these questions can be found not by concentrating on the significance of the use of the word "trustee" or "trust" alone but by gathering the true intent of the document considered as a whole. In some cases where documents purport to dedicate property in favour of public charity, provision is made for the maintenance of the worshipper who may be a member of the family of the original owner of the property himself and in such cases the question https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis often arises whether the provision for the maintenance of the manager or the worshipper from the income of the property indicates an intention that the property should retain its original character and should merely be burdened with an obligation in favour of the charity. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the 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 public 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. It is naturally difficult to lay down a general rule for the solution of the problem. Each case must be considered on its facts and the intention of the parties must be determined on reading the document as a whole...”

(ii) NIRMALA BALA GHOSE V. BALAI CHAND GHOSE [AIR 1965 SC 1874] “19. It is inexpedient to construe the terms of one deed by reference to the terms of another, or to lay down general rules applicable to the construction of settlements varying in terms. In construing a deed, the Court has to as- certain the intention of the settlor, and for that purpose to take into consideration all the terms thereof. If, on a review of all the terms, it appears that after endowing property in favour of a religious institution or a deity, the surplus is either expressly or by implication retained with the settlor or given to his heirs, a partial dedication may readily be inferred, apparently comprehensive words of the disposition in favour of the religious endowment notwithstanding.”

(iv) The Idol Of Sri Ranganathaswamy v. Gopaldas Dwarakadoss [MANU/TN/4205/2019] "26. With regard to the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant that the property(ies) was/were specifically endowed to the appellant-Idol, it is replied by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-auction purchaser, by relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of S.Kandasami Iyer and another Vs. Sivachidambaram Chettiar and another, reported in 1922 (xvi) L.W 341, contended that the “Kattalai” in a Hindu temple itself is an independent religious Trust and such a “Kattalai” is not subject to control by the Temple Committee. According to the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, mere existence of a “Kattalai” without “specific endowment” or “dedication” of a property(ies), will not entitle the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to claim a right over such property(ies), as they are not Temple property(ies). In this case, there was no “Kattalai” or “specific endowment” in respect of the property(ies) sold to the third respondent, to the appellant-Idol and therefore, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department has no jurisdiction to assert a right over the property(ies) in question. In this context, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi Vs. Duddukuru Subba Rao reported in AIR 1957 SC 797, wherein it was held in para No.5 that “If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of the 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.” Thus, “religious charity” is commonly called as “Kattalai” in Hindu Temples and such “Kattalai” must be clear and certain and must show that a particular property(ies) is exclusively set apart or dedicated for the purpose of charitable activities to the Deity or the Temple in tune with the definition of “specific endowment” given in Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. In the absence of any proof to show the nature of “Kattalai”, for performance of which, the subject matter of the property(ies) had been specifically endowed, the claim of the appellant cannot be sustained."