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

2. The first respondent is a trust represented by its Managing Trustee. The second and third respondents are members of the first respondent. The suit property was originally purchased on 2 June 1887 by Thoppulan Chettiar. On a portion of the property, he constructed a Stone Mandapam for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy. During the Hindu festival months, he used to invite the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy and receive its blessings. In addition, Thoppulan Chettiar also conducted other charitable activities at the suit property for the benefit of the devotees, namely supplying drinking water and millet porridge for three days during the Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals from the Mahimai fund (Gods account), which was established from his granary business. After fourteen continuous years of carrying on these charitable activities, on 8 July 1901, Thoppulan Chettiar executed a Deed of Settlement, prohibiting the future sale or mortgage of the suit property and directing his descendants to continue carrying out these charitable activities upon his death from the income of their business. The relevant clauses of the Deed of Settlement are examined in a later section of this judgement3. By a lease deed dated 29 April 1978, the suit property was leased out to Sri Renga Fibre for twenty years. Sri Renga Fibre further sub-let the suit property to various third parties. A portion of the suit property admeasuring 2,500 square feet was encroached upon by third parties and the first respondent had filed asuit for eviction of the encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy. Owing to the difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing encroachment, the managing trustees of the first respondent decided to sell the suit property (20,865 square feet) to the fourth respondent, leaving aside 4,135 square feet, where the Stone Mandapam was situated. The object of the sale was to use the interest generated from the sale consideration for carrying out the object of the charity. By an agreement dated 1 February 2001, the first respondent sought to sell land admeasuring 20,865 square feet (out of property admeasuring 25,000 square feet) to the fourth respondent. The present dispute concerns the proposed sale of the 20,865 square feet4. The first respondent instituted a suit in 2004 before the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for sale of the suit property in favour of the fourth respondent and to deposit the sale proceeds in a nationalised bank. The proposed sale was resisted by the appellant, namely the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer (the fourth defendant). It was contended by the appellant that the trust had no right to alienate the property and that Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the entire property to the idol for the performance of charitable activities. The appellant alleged that the first respondent is a public religious trust created for carrying out specific charities and therefore the suit property constituted a specific endowment as contemplated under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. According to the appellant, under Section 34 of the Act of 1959, only the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments has the power to grant sanction for alienation of the suit property of a trust and the civil court has no jurisdiction5. On 10 November 2004, the Second Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the first respondents suit and held that the Act of 1959 was not applicable to the first respondent trust as it was a private trust and not a public trust. The trial judge relied upon the fact that the register of properties owned by the appellant made no mention of the suit property and held that the Deed of Settlement did not vest the suit property in the appellant. Accordingly, it was held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no applicability and the proposed sale could be sanctioned only by a civil court6. In appeal, by a judgement dated 31 August 2005, the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli upheld the judgment of the trial court. The appellant preferred a second appeal before the Madras High Court. By its judgement dated 1 November 2016 the High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Deed of Settlement did not create any charge or encumbrance in favour of the appellant. The High Court held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no applicability as the first respondent trust is a private trust and not a religious trust and therefore, the civil court could permit the proposed sale of the property. These findings have been challenged by the appellant before this Court.

Reasoning:
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.