Sathianama Bharati vs Saravanabagi Ammal And Ors. on 1 May, 1894
357 the requisites of a valid wakf are set out and in Sathianama Bharati v. Saravanabagi Ammal 18 M. 266 : 4 M.L.J. 223 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 535 the original grant provided that the grantee was "to improve the mutt, maintain the charity and be happy." It was found that, according to the usage of the institution, the specific trusts to which the income of the village; was applicable consisted (1) in the distribution of sadavarthi (rice and condiments were supplied in lieu of cooked food) in, the mutt to Gosayi and other pilgrims who pass through Montithope; (2) in the maintaining of pooja or worship in the temple called Sankara Bharati Swami Kovil; (3) in supporting a watershed or pandal at a place near the village, called Ellandope, and (4) in providing maintenance to the descendants of the grantee. The learned Judges held: "The conclusion to which we come is that the village was granted as an endowment to the mutt and the charities connected with it, and that what might remain after the due execution of those trusts was intended to be applied to the maintenance of the grantee or his descendants. "The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that there was necessity for the alienation and, therefore, the debt is binding on the trust. There is no evidence that there was any necessity for borrowing such a large sum. Exhibit A is a usufructuary mortgage-deed in favour of Sri Ankitam Atchayamma by Joinabibi in which there is a recital to the effect that Rs. 150 per annum was the sum payable for lighting and other expenses of the Dargah and Rs. 100 per annum for the festival of Urs. If that was all the amount that was needed for the up keep of the Dargah it is not easy to conceive how such a large sum as Rs. TO,000 could have been required for the expenses of Dargah. There is no evidence that, owing to famines or other causes beyond the control of the Mutvalli, it was necessary to borrow for unkeep of the Dargah or for performing the annual festival. Though the District Judge has not discussed the evidence at great length, yet, in the absence of any evidence worth the name, it cannot be said that his finding as to the absence of necessity is wrong, It is for the plaintiff to make out necessity in a case like this, and the mere fact that there has been a debt outstanding for a long time is not a circumstance going to show that, when the debt was first incurred it must have been for a purpose which would bind the trust. From the conduct of the parties, who treated the wakf property, as, family property it can be safely inferred that they borrowed for their own purposes and it was only in the year 1884 that Jaina bibi was willing to acknowledge that the village in question was granted for offering services to the Asar Sheriiff at Chicacolle and for the expends as aforesaid and for the festivals in the Dargah. In the earlier proceedings affecting the plaint village there is no mention any when that it was granted for the purpose of any service; vide Exhibits H, J. and X. I, therefore, hold that no necessity has been proved in this case.