Case: M.J.THULSIRAMAN  Vs. COMMR

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. 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 Narayana Ayyangar case (supra), wherein a Fund, instituted for the 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:?7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of the Rathotsavam festival of Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami shrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and the object of the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine on the occasion of this festival. It is not disputed that setting up a Fund for feeding Brahmins is a public charity. The primary purpose of the charity is to feed Brahmin pilgrims attending the Rathotsavam. This public charity has therefore a real connection with the Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festival of a religious character, and therefore it is a religious charity within the meaning of Section 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of 1951…?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 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 three¬Judge 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:?4. There is no dispute that in order that there may be an endowment within the meaning of the Act, the settlor must divest himself of the property endowed. To create an endowment he must give it and if he has given it, he of course has not retained it; he has then divested himself of it. Did the settlors then divest themselves of anything? We think they did. By the instrument the settlors certainly divested themselves of the right to receive a certain part of the income derived from the properties in question. They deprived themselves of the right to deal with the properties free of charge as absolute owners which they previously were...? (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 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. Goda Rao Sahib (supra), there has been a clear divestment of the 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. 23. Another factor which merits our consideration is the fact that the predecessor¬in¬interest 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 predecessor¬in¬ 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 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.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]10. From the above, it is clear that a 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. 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.In the present case, the rock inscription in the ?Bakers 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.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 three¬Judge 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… The expression ?associated? in Section 6(13) of Act 19 of 1951 is used having regard to the history of the legislation, the scheme and objects of the Act, and the context in which the expression occurs, as meaning ?being connected with? or ?in relation to?. The expression does not import any control by the authorities who manage or administer the. As such, the public charity described in the rock inscription, 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 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.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. 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.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 reference to ?Brahmins? in the rock inscription itself clearly indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature.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 three¬Judge 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 aThere is no dispute that in order that there may be an endowment within the meaning of the Act, the settlor must divest himself of the property endowed. To create an endowment he must give it and if he has given it, he of course has not retained it; he has then divested himself of it. Did the settlors then divest themselves of anything? We think they did. By the instrument the settlors certainly divested themselves of the right to receive a certain part of the income derived from the properties in question. They deprived themselves of the right to deal with the properties free of charge as absolute owners which they previously were...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 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. Goda Rao Sahib (supra), there has been a clear divestment of the 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 the predecessor¬in¬interest 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 predecessor¬in¬ 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.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 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.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.