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 section 2E 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 thenamdar of that Inam though he had the liability to repair the tank in his village from out of the income of thatnam
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 thisnam 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 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 and 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 Anr2 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 2 627 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 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
In Jamnabai vs Khimji Vullubdass and Ors1 Sir Charles Sargent Kt
 CJ while interpreting a will observed thus 1 ILR at p 9 13 Sup
C168 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 is 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
BK Puttaramayya and Orsx 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 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 ILR 1957 Mys
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
RKPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
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 section 2E 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  Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors
V Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar and Anr  Jamnabai V Khimji Vallubdass  Ors ILR at p 9 and V Mariyappa and Ors
BK Puttaramayya and Ors
ILR 1957 Mys
291 referred to