Case: W.N. ALLAL SUNDARAM Vs. COMMISSIONER H.R

2. The appellant instituted OS no 5916 of 1990 before the City Civil Court at Madras seeking two(i) The setting aside of an order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR and CE ) Administration Department on 21 March 1990; and(ii) A declaration that the Bagyammal Trust is not a „specific endowment? falling under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Act of 1959)3. The case of the appellant is that the trust in respect of Sri Swamiya Dhamodara Perumal Temple is not a public trust. The Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department issued a notice stating that the Bagyammal Trust is a public trust. The appellant claimed that the plaint schedule property had been settled in favour of Bagyammal (The High Court uses the word „Pakkiyammal?. However, the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 marked as Exhibit-A1 uses the expression „Bagyammal?. For the sake of convenience, this Court in the present judgment is using the term „Bagyammal?.) by her predecessors under a Deed of Settlement in pursuance of which she was in possession and enjoyment of the property between 1928 and 1959. Bagyammal is alleged to have executed a Deed of Settlement in favour of Raju Chettiar. On his death in 1954, it was alleged that his wife Jagathambal succeeded to the property as his sole heir. Jagathambal is alleged to have settled the property in favour of her son-in-law W S Natarajan Chettiar. He is stated to have taken over possession of the property and to have been in control until his death in 1968. The appellant, as his son, claims to have succeeded to the property4. The case of the appellant is that the trust which was created by Bagyammal is a private family trust which would not attract the provisions of the Act of 1959. A proceeding (OA 12 of 1984) was instituted under Section 63(a) before the Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department seeking a declaration to that effect. On 3 October 1986, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the proceeding. On 21 March 1990, an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the first respondent. This led to the institution of a suit by the appellant under Section 70(1). On 27 October 1995, the Trial Judge decreed the suit5. In appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court on 27 October 2006. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 100(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure 19086. A Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in order to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Leave was granted on 4 May 2017.

Reasoning:
15. In the present case, it emerges from the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 that the trustees initially settled a plot of land for the construction of a choultry in 1921. The choultry which was in connection with the activities of the Devasthanam was found to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the devotees during religious festivals. Consequently, on 4 June 1926, a Deed of Settlement was executed under which Bagyammal was entrusted with the construction of an additional choultry. The choultry was to be specifically utilised for the purpose of extending facilities to pilgrims who visited the Devasthanam. There was a restraint on the creation of an encumbrance either on the choultry or on the land. The choultry was to be utilised at all times for the use of the general public. No right could be claimed by Bagyammal on the choultry. The choultry was to be maintained by Bagyammal, her descendants or her nominees. In view of the clear terms emerging from the deed, the definition of the expression „specific endowment? in Section 6(19) is attracted. The purpose of the Act of 1959 is to consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The property was endowed specifically for the performance of a religious charity in the temple and was covered within the scope of definition of „specific endowment? in Section 6(19)16. The learned Trial Judge was evidently in error in coming to the conclusion that there was an absence of a „specific endowment? within the meaning of Section 6(19). The High Court was entirely correct in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal.