Rajeevalochanachar Mahant of Uthirathi Srivaishnavite Mutt and Another vs D. Ramachar and Another

Ramaswami, J.—The suit was filed u/s 92 of the CPC for framing a scheme for the trust known as Deep Narayandas Trust. The Deed of

Trust dated 11th January, 1910 provides that the income from the property should be spent for lighting in Sri Adhikesava Perumal, Sri Bashyakar

Temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and for feeding the uttaradhis (persons from north India) during Brahmotsavam and other periods in the

year. When the suit was taken up for trial, at the instance of the defendants, issues 1 and 2 relating to the maintainability of the suit were taken up

for consideration as preliminary issues. The contention of the defendants was that by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious

and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), the suit is barred and that if at all the application will have to be made to

the Deputy Commissioner for framing the scheme u/s 63 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, did not accept this contention on the ground,

that the main dispute related as to which of the rival claims is entitled to celebrate the annual festival and such disputes cannot fall within the ambit

of Section 63 and as such the bar u/s 108 will not apply. It is against this order, this Revision Petition has been filed.

Section 5(e) of the Act excludes the applicability of Sections 92 and 93 of the CPC to ""Hindu Religious institutions and endowments"". It is not

the case of the defendants that the trust in question is a Hindu religious institution. But what is contended is that it is religious endowment within the

meaning of Section 5 of the Act. ''Religious Endowment'' is defined in Clause 17 of Section 6, as meaning:

''religious endowment'' or ''endowment'' means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or

endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the

institutions concerned and also the premises thereof; but does not include gifts of the property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service-holder

or other employee of a religious institution.

The endowment is not for the support of the math or temple. However, it is contended that it is given or endowed for the purpose of a service of a

public nature connected with temple or math. This was on the ground that one of the directions in the endowment is lighting in Sri Adhikesava

Perumal, Sri Bashyakar Temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and that would amount to a religious endowment. However, I find that the major

part of the income from the properties endowed is to be spent for feeding the persons coming from North India during Brahmotsavam and other

days. That is not a religious endowment, though it is a public charity. It is also not a religious charity so far as feeding of persons coming from

North India because it is not connected with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character and the feeding is to be done throughout the

year. In the circumstances, therefore, this has to be considered as a composite endowment, both for religious purposes as also secular purposes.

To such a trust, Section 5 is not attracted. It is true that the Government should have notified the same u/s 3, but no such notification has so far

been made. At best, it could be said that u/s 63, the Deputy Commissioner has a power to make an allocation between the religious and secular

purposes. But, that does not mean the jurisdiction of the civil Court in framing a scheme is excluded. In the circumstances, therefore, the finding of

the learned Judge that the Court below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it is not barred by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959

is correct and does not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. But, there will be no order as to costs.