AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Govardhan, J.—The plaintiff is the appellant.
The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff''s grandfather Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty was the founder of Cheetalla
Venkatachalam Chetty Charities and he was the sole trustee of the same for the performance of Thadhiarathanai services in Perumal Temples
located in Madras. The house bearing new door No. 61, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 was set apart by him for the performance of the
private trust in the partition deed of the family dated 2.11.1985. He had not executed any Trust deed, with an absolute endowment of any
properties for the performance of any specific endowment in any religious institution. There was a ''silasasanam'' embedded on the walls of the
house indicating the private nature of the trust in question. The object of the founder to perform the ''Thadhiarathanai services'' is not with reference
to any particular temple. So as to constitute a specific endowment or a Religious Charity. In view of the peculiar nature of the dedication, the
plaintiff and his ancestors could not perform the Thadhiarathanai services''. But the plaintiff has been continuing the services of distributing
''thathiarathanai'' to Desanthiris in the house set apart by the founder. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras has initiated suo motu
proceedings in O.A. No. 19 of 1969 to frame a scheme for the private trust in question as if it has come under the purview of the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The plaintiff has filed a petition u/s 63(a) of the Act in O.A. No. 30 of 1969 for a
declaration that the above charity does not constitute either as a specific endowment or a religious charity to attract the provisions of the Act. The
Deputy Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated in O.A. No. 19 of 1969, but dismissed the O.A. No. 30 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.P. No. 100 of 1975 to the Commissioner to set aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. The
appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit u/s 70(1) of the Act to set aside the order of the first defendant viz. The
Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board in A.P. No. 100 of 1975. There is no specific direction for the performance of the services in question in any
particular religious institution. Therefore, it will not come under the purview of the Act. The plaintiff is a sole trustee and he prays a decree may be
passed setting aside the order of the Commissioner.
The first defendant is his written statement contends as follows: The slab inscription dated 22.9.1982 embedded in old door No. 174,
Govindappa Naicker Street has been clandestinely removed by de facto trustee Raghava Chetty and he is keeping it in his custody. He is also
residing in the said building without paying any rent. The charities founded have not been performed. The intention of the founder had been nullified.
The plaintiff contends that it is a private trust managed by the hereditary trustee and it is secular in character. It is also contended by him that there
was no provision for any kind of religious charity public or private and the trust was a failure on account of the vagueness and uncertainty. Deputy
Commissioner heard both O.A. No. 19 of 1969 and O.A.No. 30 of 1969, simultaneously. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the
dismissal of O.A. No. 30 of 1969 filed by him. The performance of Thathiarathanai in perumal temples in the City of Madras is a religious
endowment or a specific endowment coming under the purview of the Act. The petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal before
the Commissioner were disposed of on merits. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.
On the above pleadings, the trial court has held that the suit endowment is of public nature connected with temples and the orders passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner are perfectly valid and dismissed the suit.
Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal representative has been brought on record.
The suit has been filed by the plaintiff appellant u/s 70 of the Act on account of the dismissal of his appeal to the Commissioner in A.P. No. 100
of 1975 against the order of the Deputy Commissioner in C.A. No. 30 of 1969 filed by him for a declaration that the suit charity does not
constitute either as a specific endowment or a religious charity to attract the provisions of the Act and to enable the Deputy Commissioner to frame
a Scheme holding that it is a private Trust. The learned Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras has held that the property has been endowed by
the donor for the performance of the service of feeding the pilgrims in Vaishnavite temples of Madras city and he is of opinion that the said
endowment is of public nature connected with temples and therefore, it cannot be considered as a private endowment and the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner is perfectly valid.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant plaintiff would argue that the founder has not created any document of endowment and it is only
in the partition deed, the premises bearing new No. 61, Govindappa Naicken Street, has been set apart for the performance of ''Thathiaradhanai
services'' in Perumal temples located in Madras city and this endowment cannot be considered either as a religious endowment or as a specific
endowment, since it is not specific in stating the name of the temple in which the charity is to be conducted and the time in which it has to be
conducted, the period, duration etc. According to the learned Advocate for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Ex. A-1 the partition
deed shows that the property has been dedicated for the specific endowment of ''Thathiaradhanai'' charities. But, the learned Counsel appearing
for the appellant would contend that there is no such dedication of the property for any specific endowment. According to the learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant, unless the specific name of the temple in which the charity is to be performed is stated, the dedication cannot be said to
be clear and it cannot be stated as to what has been stated in the partition deed, would show that there is a specific endowment. Specific
endowment has been defined in Section 6(19) of the Act is as follows:
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 very wording in section shows that the property or money should be endowed for the performance of any specific service or a charity in a
math or temple. In the present case, the recitals in the partition deed being to the effect that ''thadhiaradhanai services'' is to be performed in
Perumal temple located in Madras City, it cannot be stated that the endowment is specific and clear. It cannot be stated that the provisions of
Section 6(19) of the Act is attracted to the present case. In the decision reported in Arjunan alias R. Umamaheswaran v. The Idol of Sri Kaliyuga
Varadaraja Perumal (1988) 2 L.W. 251, there is an indication for us to decide what is ''specific endowment''. It has been held in the above
decision that ''specific endowment'' means a property or money given in endowment for the purpose of performing a specific service or religious
charity in a temple or math. In the present case, as we have already seen the document relied by the respondents does not specify the temple or
math in which the specific service of ""thadhiaradhanai"" is to be performed. It is very vague. Therefore, when we consider the point at issue in the
light of law laid in the decision reported in Arjunan alias R. Umamaheswaran v. The Idol of Sri Kaliyuga Varadaraja Perumal (1988) 2 L.W. 251,
which gives us an indication as to what is ''specific endowment'', it is seen that the suit charity cannot be considered as a specific endowment. The
decision reported in R.M.AR. AR.RM. AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Commissioner H.R. and C.E., Madras 91 L.W. 337, shows what is not a
specific endowment as defined u/s 6(19). It was a case in which also, the endowment was not in a particular temple. The endowment was for the
performance of Abhishekam in the Shiva Temples in the Country. A Division Bench of this Court has held that this endowment bristles with
vagueness, the choice is left to the trustees for the time being of the endowment to choose the temple and the temple authorities are not even
informed of such a performance of service, the found is controlled by the trustees and the abhishekam is performed in the name and Jenma
Nakshatram of the donor and the members of the family and that the temple authorities cannot enforce the performance of the service because they
are unaware of the fact that whether in one particular temple such abhishekam is going to be performed at all during the Mahasivarathri day. Their
Lordships have held in the above decision that solitary element that the members of the family of the donor are vested with the discretion to utilise
the funds for performing the abhishekam in any Siva temple and therefore choice would not make it a public endowment. In our case, the
endowment is in the form of the property bearing old No. 174 and new No. 61, Govindappa Naicken Street. The charity to be performed is
thadhiaradhanai"" in vaishnava temples located in Madras City. The endowment suffers the same defects as in the case reported in R.M.AR.
AR.RM. AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Madras 91 L.W. 337, in that it is very vague and the choice is left to the
trustees for the time being of the endowment to choose the Vaishnava temple. There is no evidence that any of the Vaishnava temple''s have been
informed of such a performance of Thadhiaradhanai service. The fund is controlled by the trustees. Atleast in the reported case, it is seen that the
charity is to be performed in the name and Jenma Nakshatram of the donor. In the case on hand, it is not stated when the charity of
thadhiaradhanai"" is to be performed. The endowment being very vague, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that it
cannot be stated that it is a specific endowment as defined u/s 6(19) is well-founded.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has gone one step further and has argued that it is not stated that the endowment is exclusively
for the Hindus and there are instances in which non-Hindus like Jains also visit Vaishnavite temples and it cannot be stated that the intention of the
donor is feeding them also. The learned Counsel has referred to a decision reported in Ponnuswamy Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1985) 1
M.L.J. 492, in which it has been held that in a case where endowment is created with the object of lighting of lights with oil in the memorial erected
in memory of king George''s Coronation to do water pandal charities in the month of chtrai every year on the occasion of Brahmothsavam of
Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple in Vilathikulam Town and perform other dharmams as decided by the trustees the endowment cannot
be said to be exclusively for Hindus. This proposition canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is a far reaching one which
need not be taken into consideration by us for the simple reason that the endowment in Ex. A-1 itself cannot be said to be a specific endowment
since it is very vague. In that view, I am of opinion that the judgment and decree of the trial court that the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner and by the first defendant are perfectly valid on the ground that the endowment cannot be deemed to be a private endowment is
erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs
throughout.