Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
KAMARAJU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/08/1968
BENCH:
HEGDE, K.S.
BENCH:
HEGDE, K.S.
SIKRI, S.M.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
CITATION:
1969 AIR 563 1969 SCR (1) 624
ACT:
Andhra Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 36
of 1956, s. 2(E)-if a tank fell within the definition of a
charitable institution.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant claimed that certain property comprised in an
Inam which was abolished by virtue of the Andhra Inams
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 36 of 1956 should
be registered in his name. His contention was that prior to
its abolition he was the Inamdar of that Inam though he had
the liability to repair a tank in his village from out of
the income of Inam was granted for a charitable purpose, the
object of assuming the Inam was granted for a charitable
purpose, the. object of the charity being a tank, the same
could not be considered a charitable institution.
HELD: (i) It was clear from the evidence that the -Inam was
granted in favour of the tank and was not a grant in favour
of the appellant’s family subject to the liability to
’repair the tank; and furthermore that the ancestors of the
appellant and subsequently the appellant were looking after
the management of the tank.
(ii) Under Hindu law a tank can be an object of charity
and when a dedication is made in favour of a tank, it is
considered as a charitable institution. Once it was held
that the Inam in the present case was in favour of the tank,
the tank in question must be considered a charitable
institution within the meaning of s. 2(E) of the Act.
Consequently, after the abolition’of the Inam, the Inam
property is converted into Ryotwari property of the tank,
to be managed by its manager. Admittedly the appellant was
the present manager and hence the property in question must
be registered in the name of the tank but would’ continue to
be managed by the appellant so long as he continued to be
its manager. [628 H-629 C]
Minister of National Revenue V. Trusts and Guarantee
Co. Ltd., [1940] A.C. 138; Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors. V.
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and Anr,
A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 116; Jamnabai V. Khimji Vallubdass & Ors.,
I.L.R. (1890) 14, Bom, 1 at p. 9; and V. Mariyappa and Ors.
v.B.K. Puttaramayya and Ors. I.L.R. [1957] Mys. 291:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 1955.
Appeal from the order dated August 9, 1963 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 431 of 1961.
D. Natsaralu, A. Subba Rao and K. Javaram, for the
appellant.
B. Parthasarathy, for respondent No. 1.
625
T. Satyanarayana, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. A short, none the less interesting question of
law arises for decision in this appeal by certificate, and
that question is whether a tank can be considered as a
charitable institution within the meaning of those words in
s. 2(E) of the Andhra Inams (Abolition & Conversion into
Ryotwari Act) 1956 (Act No. 36 of 1956) (to be hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
The Inam with which we are concerned in this case stands
abolished under the Act. The appellant wants the property
comprised in that Inam to be registered in his name. His
contention is that prior to its abolition he was the/namdar
of that Inam though he had the liability to repair the tank
in his village from out of the income of that/nam. The
Authorities under the Act have rejected ’Iris claim that he
was the Inamdar of the Inam in question. They have come to
the conclusion that the Inam was in favour of the tank and
that he was in possession of the Inam property only as the
Manager of the tank which according to them was a charitable
institution. This conclusion has been upheld by the High
Court.
It is not known as to who granted the Inam in question. The
grant is lost in antiquity. The only evidence we have
relating to this/nam are the entries in the Inam register.
A copy of that register has been produced in this case.
Therein the Inam is shown to have been granted to the tank
"uracheruvu". Under column 8 it is mentioned that it was
given for repairs of the pond called uracheruvu situated
close to the village. Under column 10 it is mentioned that
it is to be in force so long as the repairs of the tank are
performed. The ancestor of the appellant was shown to be
the Manager of the charitable institution viz., the tank.
Under the remarks column it is mentioned "The pond is of
great use for the cattle and people of the village. The
Inam can be confirmed permanently so long as the repairs are
performed. The pond for which the Inam was originally
granted was situated north to the village and is now out of
use. At the request of the villagers the late Collector Mr.
Fraser issued an order in 1819 that the proceeds of this
Inam can be applied to the present existing Kunta which is
south to the village and so of use."
From these entries it is clear that the Inam was granted
in favour of the tank known as "uracheruvu". It has been so
considered at least ever since 1819. Therefore we are
unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that it
was a grant in favour of his family subject to the
liability to. repair the tank. It appears that the
ancestors of the appellant and at present the appellant
is looking after the management of the tank.
626
Mr. Narsaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant contended
that even if we come to the conclusion that the Inam was
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
granted for a charitable purpose, the object of the charity
being a tank, the same cannot be considered as a charitable
institution. According to him a tank cannot be considered
as an institution. In support of that contention of his he
relied on the dictionary meaning of the term ’institution’.
According to the dictionary meaning the term ’institution’
means "a body or organization of an association brought into
being for the purpose of achieving some object". Oxford
Dictionary defines an ’institution’ as "an establishment
organisation or association, instituted for the promotion of
some object especially one of public or general utility,
religions, charitable, educational, etc." Other Dictionaries
define the same word as ’organised society established
either by law or the authority of individuals, for promoting
any object, public or social’. In Minister of National
Revenue V. Trusts a.nd Guarantee Co. Ltd. (1) the Privy
Council observed:
"It is by no means easy to give a definition
of the _ word "institution" that will cover
every use of it. Its meaning must always
depend upon the context in which it is found."
In Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors. V. Shiromani Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar and Anr.(2) the Privy Council
considered a Madrasah as institution though it doubted
whether the same can be considered as a "juristic
personality". This is what the Privy Council observed:
"A gift can be made to a madrasah in like
manner as to a masjid. The right of suit by
the mutwali or other manager or by any person
entitled to a benefit (whether individually or
as a member of the public or merely in common
with certain other persons ) seems hitherto to
have been found sufficient for the purpose of
maintaining Mohomedan endowments. At best the
institution is but a caput mortuum, and some
human agency is always required to take
delivery of property and to apply it to the
intended purposes. Their Lordships, with all
respect to the High Court of Lahore, must not
be ’taken as deciding that a "juristic
personality" may be extended for any purpose
to Muslim institutions generally or to mosques
in particular. On this general question they
reserve their opinion."
We may at this stage state that the Act has not defined
either the expression "charitable institution" or even
"institution". Therefore we have to find out the meaning of
that term with reference to the context in which it is
found. We must remember that the
(1) [1940] A.C. 138. (2) A.I.R. 1940 P.C.,
116.
627
expression "charitable institution" is used in a statute
which abolishes Inams. The Inam in question must
undoubtedly have been granted by a Hindu. Most of the Inams
abolished by the Act were those granted by Hindu Kings in
the past. According to Hindu conceptions a tank has always
been considered as an object of charity. In the Tagore Law
Lectures delivered in 1892 by late Parelit Prannath
Saraswati on "The Hindu Law of Endowments",
"From very ancient times the sacred
writings of the Hindus divided works
productive of religions merit into two
divisions named ishta and purta a
classification which has come down to our
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
times. So much so that the entire objects of
Hindu endowments will be found included within
the enumeration of ishta and purta works.
In the Rig Veda ishtapurttam (sacrifices and
charities ) are described as the means of
going to heaven. In commenting on the same
passage Sayana explains ishtapurtta to denote
"the gifts bestowed in srauta and smarka
rites." In the Taittiriya Aranyaka,
ishtapurtta occur in much the same sense and
Sayana in commenting on the same explains
ishta to denote "Vedic rites like Darsa,
Purnamasa etc. and purta "to denote Smarkta
works like tanks, wells etc.".
At page 26 he again quotes Vyasa in these words:
"Tanks, wells with flights of steps, temples, the
bestowing of food, and groves-these are called purttam."
At page 27, the learned lecturer enumerates the purtta
works. Amongst them is included the construction of works
for the storage of water, as wells, baolis, tanks etc. The
learned lecturer devotes his tenth lecture to "purtta". In
the course of that lecture he again states that the
construction of reservoirs of water is. classed by Hindu
sages amongst the "purtta" and charitable works. In this
connection he quotes from various treatises such as:
(i) Ashwalayana Grihya Parishishta;
(ii) Vishnu Dharmottara;
(iii) Skanda Purana;
(iv) Nandi Purana;
(v) Aditya Purana;
(vi) Yama;
(vii) Mahabharata etc. etc.
In Jamnabai v. Khimji Vullubdass and Ors.(1) Sir Charles
Sargent Kt., C.J. while interpreting a will observed thus:
(1) I.L.R. [1890] 14, Bom., 1 at p. 9. 13 Sup. C1/68-9
628
"We come to the latter part of clause 6, which
directs the building of a well and "avada",
(cistern for animals to drink water from), out
of the surplus of his fund after providing for
the outley of the two sadavarats and
repairing his property. Mr. Justice Jardine
considered he could not presume a charitable
object in a well and "avada". Such an object
is so frequently the result of charitable
intention in Oriental countries, and i.s so
entirely in accordance with the notions of the
people of this country that we think that, in
the absence of anything to show that the
testator intended the well and "avada" to be
built for the benefit of the property-and
there is nothing in the presen’t will to show
such intention they should be presumed to
have intended by the testator for the use of
the public."
In V. Mariyappa and Ors. v.B.K. Puttaramayya and Ors(x) a
Division Bench of the Mysore High Court observed thus:
"The maintenance of Sadavartas, tanks, seats
of learning and homes for the disabled or the
destitute and similar institutions is
recognised by and well known to Hindu law, and
when maintained as public institutions they
must be taken to have a legal personality as
a Matha or the diety in a temple has, and the
persons in charge of the Management would
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
occupy a position of trust."
That decision proceeds on the basis that a tank can be a
charitable institution under Hindu law. That decision was
quoted with approval by late Bijan Kumar Mukherjea who later
became the Chief Justice of this Court, in his Tagore Law
Lectures delivered in August 1951. Therein he observed:
"It has been held that though Mutts and
temples are the most common forms of Hindu
religious institutions, dedication for
religious or charitable purposes need not
necessarily take one of these forms
and that
the maintenance of sadabartas, tanks, seats of
learning and homes for the disabled or the
destitute and similar institutions are
recognised by and well known to Hindu law and
when maintained as public institutions, they
must be taken to have a legal personality as a
Matha or the deity in a temple has, and the
persons in charge of the management would
occupy a position of trust."
From the above discussion it is seen’ that under Hindu law a
tank can be an object of charity and when a dedication is
made in
(1) I.L.R. [1957] Mys. 291.
629
favour of a tank, the same is considered as a charitable
institution. It is not necessary for our present purpose to
decide whether that institution can also be considered as a
juristic person. Once we come to the conclusion that the
Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an Inam in
favour of the "uracheruvu" (tank) that tank must be
considered as a charitable institution under the Act.
Consequently after the abolition of the Inam, the Inam
property gets itself converted into Royatwari property, of
the "uracheruvu", to be managed by its Manager. Admittedly
the appellant is its present Manager. Hence the property
in question has to be registered in the name of the tank but
it will" continue to be managed by the appellant so long as
he continues to be its Manager.
In the result subject to our observations as regards the
management of the property, the appeal is dismissed. No
costs.
R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.
630