M.J.THULSIRAMAN vs. COMMR.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4676 OF 2010 M. J. THULASIRAMAN AND ANOTHER       … APPELLANTS ERSUS V THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT  ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER       … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T   N.V. R AMANA , J.   This   appeal   is   directed   against   judgment   dated   27.11.2008, 1. passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 128   of   2000,   whereby   the   appeal   filed   by   the   appellants   under Section   70(2)   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Hindu   Religious   and   Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter “the Act”) was dismissed. 2. The short issue before us relates to the nature of the institution Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2020.01.31 16:57:37 IST Reason: called “Bakers  Choultry”,   situated   at  No.   23,   South   Mada  Street, 1 Mylapore, Chennai­ 600004, as well as the nature of the endowment it has been burdened with. 3. The  genesis  of  this  dispute  lies  in the  year  1987,  when the appellants’  predecessor­in­interest filed an application under Section 63(a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras for a declaration to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” is a private property belonging to him, with a duty cast on him to perform certain private charities. This application was dismissed   vide   order dated 19.03.1990,   and   the   appeal   against   the   above   order,   before   the Commissioner,   Hindu   Religious   and   Charitable   Endowments Administration Department, Madras, also came to be dismissed  vide order dated 02.03.1994. Being aggrieved, the appellants’ predecessor­ in­interest then filed a civil suit, being Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994, under Section 70(1) of the Act, challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. However, this civil suit also   came   to   be   dismissed   vide   judgment   dated   30.03.1999.   An appeal being Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000 was thereafter filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein due to the demise of the appellants’ predecessor­in­interest the present appellants were brought   on   record   as   his   legal   representatives.   The   High   Court 2 dismissed the appeal  vide  impugned judgment dated 27.11.2008. The appellants thereafter filed the present Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave. This Court,  vide  order dated 14.05.2010, directed that status quo as to possession is to be maintained during the pendency of this appeal.  4. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   in   challenging   the concurrent findings of the Courts below, submitted that in the facts of   the   present   case   the   Courts   were   incorrect   in   holding   that   a specific endowment existed with respect to the “Bakers Choultry’, particularly one relating to a religious purpose. The learned counsel has   placed   reliance   upon   two   judgments   of   the   High   Court   of Judicature   at   Madras,   viz. ,   Commissioner   for   Hindu   Religious Endowments   Board,   Madras   v.   Vinayakar   Arudra   Tiruppani Sabha,  AIR 1953 Madras 407   and  R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar   v.   The   Commissioner   for   Hindu   Religious   and ,  (1978) 91 LW 337, to support his Charitable Endowments, Madras submission that the rock inscription being vague, secular in nature, and not resulting in any divestment of title thereby could not be considered a “specific endowment” under the Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 3 submitted   that   the   appellants   were,   in   effect,   challenging   four concurrent   findings   by   the   Courts   below   and   the   respondent authorities. He submitted that the arguments being raised by the appellants were already canvassed before the High Court, which had dismissed the appellants appeal by giving cogent reasoning  vide  the impugned   judgment   which   does   not   merit   any   interference.   The counsel   for   the   respondents   further   submitted   that   the   stone inscription   found   inside   the   choultry   would   reveal  that  a  specific endowment has been created for the purpose of feeding “brahmins” and poor people, during certain festivals, and would therefore be an endowment   which   falls   under   the   ambit   of   the   Act.   Lastly,   the counsel submitted that the predecessor­in­interest of the appellants had   taken   part   in   earlier   proceedings   relating   to   same   property wherein he had claimed the property to be trust property, and as such, could not now claim the same to be private property. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. 6. It is pertinent to note that the counsels for both parties, for the 7. most part, confined their arguments to the interpretation of a rock inscription which is found in the “Bakers Choultry”, allegedly of the year   1834,   to   substantiate   their   respective   claims.   The   rock inscription admittedly states the following: 4 “all   of   us   who   do   the   bakery   business   shall hereditarily   utilize   the   balance   for   the   feeding   of Brahmins   during   the   festivals   of   Thiruvotriyur   and Mylapore and for other proper charity expenses and those   who   conduct   the   charities   of   the   aforesaid choultries shall have no right whatsoever to alienate the said choultries and anything belonging to them by way of usufuctuary mortgage, gift, sale, etc., but they shall   have   power   to   conduct   the   charities   of   the choultries appropriately, to support Brahmins therein as they deem fit and receive offerings.” 8. The question that arises for our consideration in the present case is to interpret the above inscription and determine whether the same amounts to a specific endowment as defined by the Act, or not.  9. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to have a look at Sections 6(19) and 6(16) of the Act. Section 6(19) of the Act defines the phrase “specific endowment” and is as extracted below: (19)   “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); xxx Section 6(16) of the Act defines a “religious charity” as below: (16)   “religious   charity”   means   a  public   charity associated   with   Hindu   festival   or   observance   of   a religious   character,  whether   it  be  connected  with  a math or temple or not; 10. From the above, it is clear that a “specific endowment" means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific 5 service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity. As it is admitted that in the present case there is no question of performing the service in the temple or a math, the endowment in the present case must fall under the second category, i.e. , it must be for the performance of a religious charity, to be a specific endowment. 11. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a public charity associated with Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. The second part of Section 6(16) of the Act clarifies that there is no requirement for the public charity to be connected with a temple or a math. 12. While   the   phrase   “public   charity”   has   not   been   specifically defined under the Act, some guidance as to its interpretation can be derived from a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in  Mahant ,   AIR 1959 SC 951,   wherein the Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi Court, while determining whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (1 of 1951) applied to both public trusts as well as private trusts, observed as follows:

6

Choultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry, provides for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefits the “public”, in line with the holding of the aforementioned Constitution Bench decision of this Court. 14. Further, the rock inscription specifically states that the charity of feeding the Brahmins is to be done at the time of specific religious festivals,  viz ., “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which is held in the Mylapore  temple,   and   the   festival   in   Sri  Thiagarajaswami  temple, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. The phrase “associated with” in the definition of   religious   charity   has   been   interpreted   in   a   three­Judge   Bench decision of this Court, in the case of   The Commissioner, Madras Hindu   Religious   and   Charitable   Endowments   v.   Narayana Ayyangar and Ors. ,  AIR 1965 SC 1916, which is extracted as below: 7

being   associated   with   a   religious   festival,   constitutes   a   religious charity as defined under the Act. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act, the 16. definition of “specific endowment” includes any money that has been endowed for the performance of a religious charity. Following our holding that the rock inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that money has been endowed for the performance of the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act. 17. While the word “endow”, and the connected word “endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some purpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with respect to religion or charity. [ See  P. Ramanatha Aiyar: The Law Lexicon,  Second Edn., p. 634, 635;  Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. 8 Deputy   Charity   Commissioner   Gujarat,   1987   Supp.   SCC   714 , paragraph   8].   In   the   present   case,   the   rock   inscription   clearly provides for the utilization of money from the “Bakers Choultry” for the   purposes   of   performing   the   charitable   activity   of   feeding Brahmins during the specified religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock inscription creates a “specific endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls within the ambit of the Act. 18. The   same   conclusion   was   reached   by   this   Court   in   the case ( supra ), wherein a Fund, instituted for the Narayana Ayyangar  purposes   of   feeding   Brahmin   pilgrims   attending   the   Sri Venkatachalapathiswami   shrine   at   Village   Gunaseelam   on   the occasion of the Rathotsavam festival, was stated to be a religious charity. In that case, the Court held that: 

9 19. Similarly,   in   the   case   of   K.S.   Soundararajan   and   Ors.   v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors. ,  (2016) 15 SCC 597, this Court again dealt with a similar issue. In this case, the Court was required to determine the nature of certain   charities   mentioned   in   a   Will,   wherein   it   was   stated  that persons   of   the   same   caste   as   the   testator   would   be   fed   on   the occasion of Panguni festival every year. The Will also provided for the supply of food to persons during the day of Chitra Pournami. In this context,   the   Court   held   that   the   abovementioned   two   charities constitute religious charities, and that it was within the ambit of the High Court under the Act to pass orders regarding the framing of a scheme for administering the same. 20. As   regards   the   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellants,  that   the   rock   inscription   did   not   constitute   a   specific endowment as the same was vague, secular in nature and did not result in any divestment of title, it must be stated that a bare perusal of the inscription would indicate that the first two contentions ought to be rejected. The rock inscription clearly stipulates the festivals during   which   the   activity   of   feeding   of   Brahmins   should   be conducted.   Not   only   are   these   festivals   Hindu   festivals,   but   the 10 reference to “Brahmins” in the rock inscription itself clearly indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature.  21. Finally, with respect to the learned counsel for the appellants’ submission regarding the absence of divestment of property for the constitution of a specific endowment, the same would have to be rejected.   A three­Judge Bench of this Court, in the case of   M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of  Madras,  AIR 1966 SC 653, while holding that divestment is necessary, decided on the facts of that case that a settlement deed which provided for a charge on properties for the payment of money amounted to a divestment:

(emphasis supplied) 22. In the   facts   of   the   present   appeal,   the   contents   of   the   rock inscription are sufficient for us to hold that there has been a valid divestment   and   to   reject   the   contention   of   the   counsel   for   the 11 appellants. The rock inscription clearly indicates that the choultry is to be managed by the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds for the benefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that the managers do not have any power of alienation with respect to the choultry. In the present appeal therefore, as in the case of  M.R. (supra) , there has been a clear divestment of the Goda Rao Sahib   right to receive a certain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar on the right of the manager to transfer the choultry.  Another factor which merits our consideration is the fact that 23. the predecessor­in­interest of the appellants had been party to earlier proceedings, before the Charity authorities and the Courts, wherein he   had   filed   pleadings   to   the   effect   that   the   “Bakers   Choultry” constituted   a   “specific   endowment”.   Although   the   predecessor­in­ interest of the applicant ultimately withdrew the application before the Deputy Commissioner wherein he made the said pleading, it is quite disingenuous of him to have subsequently filed an application before   the   Commissioner   claiming   the   same   property   to   be   his personal property.  24. Therefore, taking into consideration the existing law and the facts of the present case, we hold that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined 12 under   the   Act,   and   the   same   is   not   the   private   property   of   the appellants. The well reasoned judgment passed by the High Court, impugned before us, therefore warrants no interference.  25. Appeal   is   consequently   dismissed,   with   no   costs.   Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Needless to say that the status quo granted  vide  order dated 14.05.2010 stands vacated. ..............................................J. (N.V. RAMANA)  ..............................................J.  (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) ..............................................J.  (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 3, 2019. 13