Case: Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao Vs. The Sub-Collector, Ongole And Anr

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 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 Pandit Prannath Saraswati on "The Hindu Law of Endowments", he stated:"From very ancient times the sacred writing of the Hindus divided works productive of religious 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 means of the going to heaven. In commenting on the same passage Sayana explained ishtapurtta to denote "the gifts bestowed in srauta and amarka 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 foods, 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.7. In Jamnabai. v.Khimji Vullubdass, (1890) ILR 14 Bom 1 at p. 9, Sir Charles Sargent Kt., C. J., while interpreting a will observed thus:"We come to the latter part of cl .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 outlay of the two sadavartas 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 present will to show such intention - they should be presumed to have intended by the testator for the use of the public."8. In V. Marivappa v. B. K. Puttaramayya, ILR (1957) Mys 291= (AIR 1958 Mys 93), 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 deity 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 Sadavartas, tanks, seats of learning and homes for the disabled or the destitutes 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.9. 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 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 at the Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an lnam in favour of the "uracheruvu" (tank) that tank must be considered as a charitable institution under the Act institution 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]4. 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.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 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 at the Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an lnam in favour of the "uracheruvu" (tank) that tank must be considered as a charitable institution under the Act institution 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.