AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.—Defendants in O.S. No. 155 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai are the appellants herein
and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The plaintiff filed the suit under Order VII , Rule 1, of CPC read with Section 70 (1)
of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959, Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Endowments
Act), for setting aside the order of the Commissioner H.R. & C.E. in A.P. No. 45, of 1983 and for a declaration that Divan Bhagadur
Ramaswamy Iyer Anna Choultry in Iyan Pappakudi Avaniapuram Village is not a Religious Institution and that the institution is not falling under the
purview of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959, and for consequential reliefs. It is their case that there is a Chatram
(Choultry) situated at Iyyan Pappakudi, Avaniapuram Village, Madurai Taluk and original grant was made in the name of Anna Chatram only and
it cannot be construed and treated either as a religious endowment or as a specific endowment attached to any religious institution. It is stated that
Divan Ramaswamy Iyer has founded the Choultry. After enquiry, the Inam Commissioner granted title deed in respect of this grant in T.D. No.
749 and confirmed it as Dharmadayam and not Devadayam. It is further stated that the concept of the original grant was adheard to by the
grantees and recognised by the Government and at the time of confirmation etc., was only a Charitable Endowments unconnected with any
religious institution. It is further stated that the defendants have erroneously concluded that the plaintiffs have admitted that they are feeding
Brahmins during Thirukalayana Utsavam and Car Festival of Sri Meenakshi Amman Temple, Madurai and the defendants have also come to an
erroneous conclusion that the Anna Chatram is a Religious Endowment. The main case is that Divan Ramaswamy Iyer Choultry, Avaniapuram is
not a religious endowment of a religious charity but only a Charitable Institution not falling within the purview of the Endowment Act. The case of
the plaintiff is that the order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment confirming the order of the Deputy
Commissioner holding that the Anna Chatram is a Religious Endowment or a specific endowment attached to the religious institution is not correct.
In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is stated that the suit property is a religious charity and is a public trust created for feeding of
not less than 300 Brahmins during the religious festivals, that is during Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman Thirukalyana festival and Car festivals at
Madurai during the Tamil Month of Chitra every year. The feeding of Brahmins on festivals is associated with the festivals itself, and hence a
religious charity u/s 6(16) of the Endowment Act. In so far as certain grant is concerned, the averments made in the plaint are denied. The main
case of the defendants is that the feeding in Annachatram by the plaintiffs for not less than 300 Brahmins during the celestial wedding of Arulmigu
Meenakshi Amman and during the Car festivals in the Tamil month of Chitrai every year would render the plaintiff a religious endowment and the
Annachatram is religious charity u/s 6(16) of the Endowment Act.
The trial Court on the above pleadings has framed four issues for consideration. On the basis of the pleadings and documentary evidence, the
lower court held that the suit charity was only meant for Divan Bhagadur Ramaswamy Iyer''s family and the trial Court was of the view that the
charity cannot be regarded as public charity and the beneficiaries are the family members of Divan Bhagadur Ramaswamy Iyer. It also held that the
Charity was performed to fulfil the desire of Divan Bhagadur Ramasamy Iyer. The trial Court also held that the charity performed has no
connection with the festival of Meenakshi Amman Temple. The trial Court was of the view that the Choultry itself has been constructed in the land
belonging to Divan Bhagadur Ramaswamy Iyer and there is no evidence to show that the feeding was open to the public. The trial Court came to
the conclusion that the charity was performed at Anna Chatram situated in Iyyan Pappakudi, Avaniaputam, Madurai, Taluk in connection with the
Celestial festival and Car festival of Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman Temple at Madurai and the charity was confined to the family members of Divan
Bhagadur Ramaswamy Iyer. The trial Court has also found that in the choultry, there are no idols of portraits of any God. The trial Court on the
basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the charity is not a public charity and accordingly cancelled the order of the first respondent-
Commissioner.
Learned Government Advocate challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court submitted that the trial Court was not correct in holding
that the suit trust is not a religious trust and the object of the trust is to feed 300 Brahmins during the celestial wedding of Arulmigu Meenakshi
Amman at Madurai and the object of the trust has close nexus with the festivals of the Hindu temple. The Government Advocate states that the trial
Court was not correct in holding that the suit trust is not a religious trust. His further submission was that the beneficiaries are the public and
therefore, the objects of the trust clearly show that it is a public trust and the fact that the feeding has been done in connection with the celestial
marriage of Arulmigu Meenakshmi Amman at Madurai and the feeding was not confined only to the members of late Divan Bhagadur Ramaswamy
Iyer show that it is a religious endowment. Learned Government Advocate brought to the attention of the court, the judgment delivered by the
Supreme Court in Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. Narayana Ayyangar and Others, and submitted that
the above decision of the Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the case. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the
learned single Judge of this Court in Semalai Gounder and others v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. etc., ( 1996-2-L.W.139 ) and submitted on
the basis of the above two decisions that Annathanam charity conducted by the plaintiff is associated with the religious festival of celestial wedding
of Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman and hence the Commissioner was correct in holding that it was a religious endowment.
Mr. K. Jayaraman, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a suit filed u/s 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act is only in the nature of an appeal against the order of the Commissioner and it cannot be equated with a suit as mentioned in
Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He, therefore, submits that parties are not strictly bound by the pleadings and his submission was that the charity is
a private charity and not public charity at all. The learned counsel further submitted that the choultry cannot be regarded as Hindu Charitable
Endowment and the provisions of the Act have no application and relied on a decision of this Court in State of Madras v. Mahadeva Iyer (1988-
1-L.W. 364=1988-I-M.L.J. 128). In State of Tamilnadu etc., v. T.S. Venkataswami Naidu (1992-1-L.W. 368) and submitted that there must be
a notification to declare the charity as a religious endowment. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in
Ramamoorthy v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., & 5 Others. (1994-1-L.W. 438) and submitted that Annachatram cannot be regarded as specific
endowment attached to the temple. Learned counsel strongly placed reliance on the decision reported in Kallalaga Trust v. Maruthamalai
Ambalam (72 L.W. 646) and submitted that mandagapadi is not an integral part of the festival of the temple and an endowment for the conduct of
such worship cannot be specific endowment and the trust is only a private trust. Learned counsel strongly relied on the decision reported in
Raghavalu Chettiar v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Madras. (1996-2-L.W. 810=1996-1 MJ-J.477) and the decision of the Supreme Court in
Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar, and submitted that on the basis of the above decisions, the suit trust is a private trust and not a public trust.
I have carefully considered the submission of learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Jayaraman, learned counsel
for the respondent. There is no difficulty in accepting the averments of the learned counsel for the respondent that suit filed u/s 70 of the Tamil
Nadu Endowments Act is only in the nature of an appeal against the order of the Commissioner and it cannot strictly be regarded as a suit. In
Palani Muthu v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, Madras, (1999-2-L.W. 29=1999-III MLJ, 23) this Court held as under:
A suit provided for under Sec.70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act is only in the nature of an appeal against the
Order of the Commissioner and it cannot be equated with a suit as mentioned in Sec. 3 of the Limitation Act.
Applying the principles of law laid down by this Court, I am of the view that it is open to the learned counsel for the respondent to plead that the
suit trust is not a religious trust and not a public trust, though it was not specifically raised in the plaint presented on behalf of the plaintiff in the
Court The original plaint proceeded on the basis that the Administrators or trustees or the descendants did not alter or change the wishes or the
direction of the founder in establishing the choultry, however, it is seen from the Order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Order of
Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, the main averment was the trust is a private trust and no other parties are entitled to
any right of management of the trust. It is the further case that the feeding was done to the members of the family and no other persons were
allowed for feedings.
The question that arises is whether the suit trust is a private trust or public trust. Though the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the grant was for
maintenance of Anna Chatram and it is not a religious endowment, the proceedings before the Civil Court in O.S. No. 360 of 1923 disclose the
object of the trust. The facts leading to the filing of the said suit are that certain disputes arose between the parties regarding the management of the
trust, and hence the parties approached the Court in O.S. No. 360 of 1973 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai a compromise
scheme was settled by the Civil Court. One of the clauses of the settlement scheme reads as under:
That from out of the income from item 1 of the suit properties and from out of the Dastik allowance and additional compensation, the trustees in
office shall feed persons numbering not less than 300 two times on the day of Madurai Meenakshi Amman Tirukalyanam and one of the day of
Car Festival during the month of Chitrai of every Tamil year.
The reading of the clause of the scheme shows that the trustees in office shall feed persons not less than 300, two times on the day of Madurai
Meenakshi Amman Tirukalyanam and on the day of Car Festival during the month of Chitrai of every Tamil year. The scheme as framed by the
Court clearly proceeds that the trustee should feed three hundred persons. The scheme is not restricted to the feeding of certain persons from a
particular community. Under clause (2) of the scheme it is open to the trustees to feed either Hindus or Non-Hindus and the object of the trust is
not a pure Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment. The beneficiaries are the public at large and it is open to the trustees to feed non-Hindus on
the particular date of the festival and since it is not purely a Hindu Religious Endowment, the assumption of the Deputy Commissioner as well as
the Commissioner that the feeding is confined to 300 Brahmins, is not correct. Though I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel
for the respondent that the trust in question is a private trust, I am of the view that the suit trust is a public trust and not a religious trust.
Even assuming that the view of the Commissioner that the object of the trust is to feed 300 Brahmins on the celestial wedding of Arulmigu
Meenakshi Amman and on the Car festival day is correct, the next question that arises is whether the trust is liable to be regarded as a religious
endowment. The expression ""Religious Charity"" is defined u/s 6(17) of the Endowments Act which reads as under:
Religious charity"" means a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a
math or temple or not.
The expression ""Religious Endowment"" is defined in Section 6(17) and ""religious institution"" is defined in Section 6(18) and the ""specific
endowment"" is defined u/s 6(19) which reads as under:
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 included an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to Clause (17).
The Deputy Commissioner has found that the charity in this suit is a public religious charity and it cannot be treated as a private one as the feedings
is done to not less than 300 persons on the date of Madurai Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman Thirukalyanam and on the date of Car festival during the
month of Chitrai every Tamil year. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment also found that the nature of the trust clearly
falls within the definition of Religious Charity since the Charity is associated with the festival of Madurai Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman.
Thirukalyanam and Car festival. The trial Court held that the feeding was confined to the members of the family, of the donor, however, as already
observed by me that in considering the question whether it is a religious charity or not, what is relevant is the object of the trust and not the way in
which it has been performed. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner,
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. Narayana Ayyangar and Others, In the above case, before the Supreme Court, three
persons of a particular village with that the aid of the contribution, subscriptions and donations set up a Samaradhanai Fund for feeding Bralimin
pilgrims attending Sri Venkatachalapatiswami Shrine at Village Gunaseelam on the occasion of Rathotsavam festival. The Supreme Court held that
the charity is a religious charity falling u/s 6(18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The Supreme Court while
considering the said question, laid down law as under:
The definition of ""religious charity"" implies that the public charity must be an integral part of the Hindu religious festival or observance. But there is
nothing in the Act which indicates any such intention of the part of the lagislature Mr. Sastri sought to give diverse illustrations in support of his
contention that mere feeding of Brahmins on the occasion of the Hindu festival or observance will not amount to association within the meaning of
S. 6(18). It is unnecessary to deal with these illustrations, for the definition contemplates a public charity which alone can be a religious charity if the
other conditions are fulfilled. A voluntary celebration of an event of religious significance by feeding Brahmins does not make it a public charity.
There must be an institution which may in law be regarded as a public charity, before it may be its association with a religious festival or
observance be regarded as a religious charity. The association undoubtedly must be real and not imaginary, but to constitute association, it is not
predicated that the administration of public charity must be controlled by the persons responsible for celebrating the religious festival in a temple or
math or be an integral part of the festival or observance.
The above view was followed by C.V. Govardhan, J. in Semalai A Gounder and others v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. etc., (1996-2-L.W.
139) wherein Annadhanam was performed in the temple and it was held to be a religious charity. The learned Judge held as under:
The annadhanam charity conducted by the descendants of Soorikattu Ayyan has been associated with the religious festival of Sivanmalai
Subramaniyaswami and the administration of the same was not controlled by the trustees of Sivanmalai temple during all these years, is seen from
the evidence placed before the Court. The decision reported in Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs.
Narayana Ayyangar and Others, will apply on all fours to the present case.
Though the learned counsel for the respondent referred to number of decisions, it is not necessary to consider the same in view of the decision of
the Supreme Court in the Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. Narayana Ayyangar and Others, Applying the
ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the charity in question cannot be regarded as a religious charity Arulmigu
Meenakshiamman Temple is situated at Madurai and in so far as the choultry is concerned, it is situated at Iyyan Pappakuzhi Village,
Avaniapuram. Though there is no evidence on this aspect, it is stated that Iyyan Pappankuzhi village is situated more than 20 kilometre from the
temple, though it is in the Madurai Taluk, I am of the view that they constitute religious charity within the meaning of Section 6(16) of the
Endowment Act, the Association between the feeding of the people and the festival must be real and proximate. I hold that to make the charitable
trust a religious trust, the object of the trust must have close nexus or connection with the temple festival. In my view the connection between the
festival and the feeding must be real and not illusory. Though the primary purpose of the trust was to feed persons, there is nothing to on record to
show that the persons attending or returning from the Celestial Wedding or the Car festival were fed. It is also not the case that the persons
proceedings to attend the celestial wedding of Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman were fed on that day. It is not the case of the department that the
persons who were returning from Madurai, after attending the celestial marriage, at Madurai were fed in the choultry on the day or the next
succeeding day. I am of the view that the celestial wedding of Goddess Meenakshi is only an occasion for feeding the people at a distant place and
it has no connection with the Hindu festival. In Kallalagar Trust v. Maruthamalai Ambalam (72 L.W. 646) Ramachandra Iyer. J., as he then was,
has held as under:
The Mandagappadi is not an integral part of the Chitrapournami Festival of the temple which is being conducted every year of the sands of 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.
I hold that the feeding is in no way connected with the festival conducted in the temple and as observed by the learned Chief Justice, the occasion
of the celestial marriage is taken advantage of for feeding the people in a distant place from Maduari. I hold that the charity is in no way connected
with the temple and it is not connected with the temple festival also and it is also not associated with the festival performed at Madurai. In the case
before the Supreme Court, it was found that the pilgrims attending, the Rathotsavam were fed on the Rathotsavam day. Similarly, in the case
before C.V. Govardhan, J. the pilgrims who came to the hill temple on Thai Poosam clay were fed. On the other hand there is absolutely no
evidence to show that the persons who were attending the celestial wedding of Goddess Meenakshi or who were returning after attending the
celestial marriage in the temple were fed in the choultry. I hold that there is no material to show that the feeding was connected with the festival.
Hence the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner that the feeding at a far of place is connected with the religious
festival is not justified, and as observed by the Supreme Court, there must be real connection between the festival and the feeding and not an
imaginary one. Further it has not been shown that the administration of the charity is controlled by the persons responsible for conducting the
festival and there is no close nexus between the charity performed and the religious festival conducted in the temple. I hold that it is not every
charity performed in any place near or far off place from the temple that would attract the provisions of Section 6(16) of the Endowments Act, but
the charity performed must have real connection with the festival performed in the temple. The Commissioner has not found that the charity
performed was associated with the festival conducted in the temple in a real sense. I, therefore, find that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner
and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law. The result is that the appeal fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order
as to costs.