Case: The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner  Vs. P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee and Ors

under Section 6(19) of the Act of 1959. 20. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals. The devotees as the ultimate beneficiaries of the charity are not an identifiable group of individuals, but constitute an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The devotees as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive. The respondent trust is a public trust. The Deed of Settlement spells out that the charitable acts carried out by the settlor: during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festivals and for the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has been erecting water shed and distributing millet pooridge for three days The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum. The festivals are Hindu religious festivals and the use of the expression devotees indicates that there exists a direct nexus and association between the public charity described in the Deed of Settlement and the Hindu religious festivals. Reference to devotees in the Deed of Settlement also indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. The charity which is described in the Deed of Settlement is a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival. The charity is a religious charity under Section 6(16). Applying the reasoning set out in M J Thulasiraman to the facts of the present case, where money (or property) is endowed for the performance of a religious charity, a specific endowment as defined in Section 6(19) is created. Therefore, the first respondent trust is a specific endowment under the Act of 1959. 21. The appellant in the present case has asserted that there existed a specific endowment in its favour. The Deed of Settlement reveals that even though there was no dedication of the suit property in the name of the appellant, Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the property for the purpose of carrying out the charity. The charity of offering services to devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visited during particular Hindu religious festivals was of a religious nature. DW 5, the Assistant Superintendent of the appellant temple, admitted during his cross- examination that the appellant temple did not exercise control over the respondent trust and there is no dedication of the suit property in its favour. In these circumstances, it is evident that the Deed of Settlement did not create a specific endowment in favour of the appellant. However, as we have seen, the activities of the first respondent trust do satisfy the definition of a religious charity under the Act of 1959. Therefore, we note that the specific endowment created by the Deed of Settlement is not in favour of the appellant idol but an endowment to a religious charity. 22. Based on the above observations and findings, we find that the Deed of Settlement does create a specific endowment as regulated by the Act of 1959. The specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the religious charity as understood under the Act of 1959. Section 108 of the Act of 1959 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to try matters regulated by the provisions of the Act of 1959. Section 108 provides thus: Bar of suits in respect of administration or management of religious institutions, etc.-No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter or dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of Law, except under, and in conformity with, the provisions of this Act. In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court. Any dispute with respect of administration or management of religious institutions is governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable as under Section 34 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land by the first respondent. 23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised the argument that under Section 3 12 of the Act of 1959, the provisions of the Act are applicable to charitable endowments only upon the issuance of a notification by the government on grounds of mismanagement by the trustees. It has been argued that in the present case, absent any such notification, the provisions of the Act of 1959 will have no applicability to the first respondent. However, the above submission cannot be accepted. The applicability of Section 3 is restricted to cases where the government has reasons to believe that a Hindu public charitable endowment is being mismanaged. Section 3 empowers the government to cause an inquiry into the affairs of such charitable endowment and in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowment extend the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, absent any such allegations or the Government having any reasons to believe that the trust is being mismanaged, the first respondent cannot place reliance upon Section 3 to exclude itself from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1959. As long as there exists a specific endowment as defined in Section 6(19), the provisions of the Act of 1959 will apply to first respondent. As shown above, in the present case, the specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the religious charity as understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the first respondent.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]The following points emerge from the Deed of Settlement:(i) Thoppulan Chettiar purchased the suit property in 1877 for the purpose of performing charitable work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum. In a part of the suit property, a black stone structure was constructed for Sri Renganathaswamy. During the Hindu festivals of Gajendra Moksham and Aadi, the deity was invited and placed on the black stone structure and Thoppulan Chettiar used to receive providence from the deity;(ii) During the Hindu festivals, Thoppulan Chettiar also erected a water shed and performed charitable activities of distributing millet porridge for the benefit of the devotees who visited the Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum on the suit property. He had been performing the charities for fourteen years prior to the Deed of Settlement;(iii) During the lifetime of Thoppulan Chettiar, these charitable activities were financed out of the Mahimai fund (Gods account), which was replenished by both the settlors own business income and the income arising from the suit property;(iv) After the settlors lifetime, he wished his three sons and their descendants to continue this charitable work and continue receiving providence from the deity. His three sons were to bear the expenditure for the charity out of their business. If, after meeting all the expenditure for undertaking the charity, the heirs possessed excess income, the excess amount was to be transferred to a family fund to be used at a future date for funding the charitable activities in case the family income was insufficient; and(v) There was an absolute prohibition on the sale or mortgage of the suit property, which was reserved and allotted for charitable work. Similarly, the family fund could not be used for clearing debts incurred by the three sonsA specific endowment can result from the allocation of either property or money (or both). Further, the allocation of the property or money can be for either a specific charity or service in a particular math or temple. Alternatively, it can be for the performance of any other religious charity11. During the lifetime of Thoppulan Chettiar, the charitable activities were financed out of the income arising from the suit property. However, the Deed of Settlement makes no mention of the income arising out of the suit property and instead creates an obligation on the settlors legal heirs to fund the charitable activities out of their own business incomes. Therefore, in the present case, no question arises of any endowment of money14. The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement creates an absolute prohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage of the suit property. The Deed of Settlement provides that, The settler purchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule of property... for the performance of charity work in reference to Sri Renganathanswamy sanctum. The property outlined in the schedule of the Deed of Settlement is described as, Property allotted for charity work. With respect to the legal heirs, the Deed of Settlement creates an obligation on the settlors legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property out of their business incomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of the endowment was to carry on charitable work. The Deed of Settlement obligates the legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit propertyIn the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried for the benefit of the devotees who visit during certain Hindu religious festivals. The charity is one which benefits the public and the beneficial interest is created in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The devotees as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive and therefore, the respondent trust is a public trustThe decision of the three judge bench in M J Thulasiraman makes it abundantly clear where the charity has a public character, and is associated with a Hindu festival, the charity falls within the definition of specific endowment under Section 6(19) of the Act of 195920. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visit during the Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals. The devotees as the ultimate beneficiaries of the charity are not an identifiable group of individuals, but constitute an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The devotees as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive. The respondent trust is a public trust. The Deed of Settlement spells out that the charitable acts carried out by the settlor:during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festivals and for the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has been erecting water shed and distributing millet pooridge for three daysThe activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity is to be carried on for the benefit of the devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum. The festivals are Hindu religious festivals and the use of the expression devotees indicates that there exists a direct nexus and association between the public charity described in the Deed of Settlement and the Hindu religious festivals. Reference to devotees in the Deed of Settlement also indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. The charity which is described in the Deed of Settlement is a public charity associated with a Hindu religious festival. The charity is a religious charity under Section 6(16). Applying the reasoning set out in M J Thulasiraman to the facts of the present case, where money (or property) is endowed for the performance of a religious charity, a specific endowment as defined in Section 6(19) is created. Therefore, the first respondent trust is a specific endowment under the Act of 195921. The appellant in the present case has asserted that there existed a specific endowment in its favour. The Deed of Settlement reveals that even though there was no dedication of the suit property in the name of the appellant, Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the property for the purpose of carrying out the charity. The charity of offering services to devotees of Sri Renganathaswamy who visited during particular Hindu religious festivals was of a religious nature. DW 5, the Assistant Superintendent of the appellant temple, admitted during his cross- examination that the appellant temple did not exercise control over the respondent trust and there is no dedication of the suit property in its favour. In these circumstances, it is evident that the Deed of Settlement did not create a specific endowment in favour of the appellant. However, as we have seen, the activities of the first respondent trust do satisfy the definition of a religious charity under the Act of 1959. Therefore, we note that the specific endowment created by the Deed of Settlement is not in favour of the appellant idol but an endowment to a religious charity22. Based on the above observations and findings, we find that the Deed of Settlement does create a specific endowment as regulated by the Act of 1959. The specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the religious charity as understood under the Act of 1959In view of Section 108, no suit or legal proceedings in respect of the administration or management of a religious institution or any other matter for determining or deciding which provision is made in the Act shall be instituted in a civil court. Any dispute with respect of administration or management of religious institutions is governed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, the suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable as under Section 34 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land by the first respondentHowever, the above submission cannot be accepted. The applicability of Section 3 is restricted to cases where the government has reasons to believe that a Hindu public charitable endowment is being mismanaged. Section 3 empowers the government to cause an inquiry into the affairs of such charitable endowment and in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowment extend the provisions of the Act of 1959. In the present case, absent any such allegations or the Government having any reasons to believe that the trust is being mismanaged, the first respondent cannot place reliance upon Section 3 to exclude itself from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1959. As long as there exists a specific endowment as defined in Section 6(19), the provisions of the Act of 1959 will apply to first respondent. As shown above, in the presentcase, the specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the religious charity as understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the first respondent.