LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
CASE TYPE: Religious and Charitable Endowments Law
Case Name: M.J. Thulasiraman and Another vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Administration and Another
Judgment Date: September 3, 2019
Date of the Judgment: September 3, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 851
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a property be considered a ‘specific endowment’ for religious purposes based on a rock inscription? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the “Bakers Choultry” in Chennai. The court examined whether the choultry was a private property with a duty to perform certain private charities or a public religious endowment. This judgment, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, clarifies the definition of “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Case Background
The dispute began in 1987 when the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed an application seeking a declaration that the “Bakers Choultry” was private property with a duty to perform certain private charities. This application was dismissed on March 19, 1990. Subsequent appeals to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration were also dismissed on March 2, 1994. A civil suit filed in 1994 challenging these orders was also dismissed on March 30, 1999. An appeal was then filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, where the present appellants were brought on record as legal representatives after the demise of the original applicant. The High Court dismissed the appeal on November 27, 2008. The appellants then filed a Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave before the Supreme Court. On May 14, 2010, the Supreme Court ordered a status quo on possession during the pendency of the appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1987 | Appellants’ predecessor-in-interest filed an application under Section 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, claiming “Bakers Choultry” as private property. |
| March 19, 1990 | Application dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras. |
| March 2, 1994 | Appeal dismissed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras. |
| 1994 | Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994 filed under Section 70(1) of the Act, challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. |
| March 30, 1999 | Civil suit dismissed. |
| 2000 | Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. |
| November 27, 2008 | High Court dismissed the appeal. |
| May 14, 2010 | Supreme Court ordered status quo on possession during the pendency of the appeal. |
| September 3, 2019 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants’ predecessor-in-interest initially filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras, seeking a declaration that the “Bakers Choultry” was private property. This application was dismissed, as was the subsequent appeal to the Commissioner. The matter then went to civil court, which also ruled against the appellants. The High Court of Judicature at Madras also dismissed the appeal, leading to the final appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of “specific endowment” and “religious charity” as defined in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Section 6(19) of the Act defines “specific endowment” as:
“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, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17).”
Section 6(16) of the Act defines “religious charity” as:
“a public charity associated with Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not.”
The court also referred to a Constitution Bench decision in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 951, to distinguish between public and private trusts. In a public trust, the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, whereas in a private trust, the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The rock inscription in the “Bakers Choultry” is vague and secular, not resulting in any divestment of title.
- The inscription does not create a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
- The inscription does not mandate a religious purpose.
- Relied on Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Vinayakar Arudra Tiruppani Sabha, AIR 1953 Madras 407 and R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, (1978) 91 LW 337 to argue that a vague inscription cannot create a specific endowment.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The rock inscription clearly indicates a specific endowment for feeding Brahmins and poor people during certain festivals.
- The endowment falls under the ambit of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as it is a religious charity.
- The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had previously claimed the property to be trust property and cannot now claim it as private property.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Rock Inscription | Vague and secular | Appellants |
| Does not result in divestment of title | Appellants | |
| Specific endowment for feeding Brahmins and poor people during festivals | Respondents | |
| Applicability of the Act | Does not create a specific endowment under the Act | Appellants |
| Falls under the ambit of the Act as a religious charity | Respondents | |
| Previous Claims | Predecessor-in-interest had previously claimed the property to be trust property | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ To interpret the rock inscription in the “Bakers Choultry” and determine whether it constitutes a “specific endowment” as defined by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the rock inscription constitutes a “specific endowment” under the Act? | The Court held that the inscription does constitute a “specific endowment.” It reasoned that the inscription mandates the use of funds for feeding Brahmins during specific Hindu festivals, which qualifies as a “religious charity” under the Act. The court also found that the inscription resulted in a divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income from the property. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 951 | Supreme Court of India | Used to distinguish between public and private trusts, emphasizing that a public trust benefits an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. |
| The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1916 | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted “associated with” in the context of religious charity as “being connected with” or “in relation to.” |
| M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 653 | Supreme Court of India | Held that divestment is necessary for an endowment and that a charge on properties for payment of money amounts to a divestment. |
| K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 597 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated that charities for feeding people of the same caste during festivals constitute religious charities. |
| Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Vinayakar Arudra Tiruppani Sabha, AIR 1953 Madras 407 | High Court of Judicature at Madras | Distinguished by the court, stating that the rock inscription was not vague. |
| R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, (1978) 91 LW 337 | High Court of Judicature at Madras | Distinguished by the court, stating that the rock inscription was not vague. |
| P. Ramanatha Aiyar: The Law Lexicon, Second Edn., p. 634, 635 | Law Lexicon | Used to define the terms “endow” and “endowment” as relating to the idea of giving, bequeathing, or dedicating something for a purpose related to religion or charity. |
| Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Deputy Charity Commissioner Gujarat, 1987 Supp. SCC 714 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the definition of “endow” and “endowment”. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Rock inscription is vague and secular. | Rejected. The court found the inscription to be specific and related to religious charity. |
| Rock inscription does not result in divestment of title. | Rejected. The court held that the inscription divested the right to receive a certain part of the income and restricted alienation. |
| The “Bakers Choultry” is private property. | Rejected. The court held that the choultry constitutes a “specific endowment” under the Act. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court followed Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi [AIR 1959 SC 951]* to determine the distinction between public and private trusts.
- The Supreme Court followed The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and Ors. [AIR 1965 SC 1916]* to interpret the phrase “associated with” in the definition of religious charity.
- The Supreme Court followed M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras [AIR 1966 SC 653]* to determine that there was a valid divestment of property in the present case.
- The Supreme Court followed K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors. [(2016) 15 SCC 597]* to reiterate that charities for feeding people of the same caste during festivals constitute religious charities.
- The Supreme Court distinguished Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Vinayakar Arudra Tiruppani Sabha [AIR 1953 Madras 407]* and R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan Chettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras [(1978) 91 LW 337]* by stating that the rock inscription was not vague.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the rock inscription and its alignment with the definitions provided in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court emphasized that the inscription mandates the use of funds for feeding Brahmins during specific Hindu festivals, which qualifies as a religious charity. The court also noted that the inscription resulted in a divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income from the property and restricted alienation, thereby constituting a “specific endowment.” The Court also considered the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had taken part in earlier proceedings relating to the same property wherein he had claimed the property to be trust property, and as such, could not now claim the same to be private property.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of the Rock Inscription | 40% |
| Compliance with the Definition of Religious Charity | 30% |
| Divestment of Property Rights | 20% |
| Previous Claims of the Predecessor-in-interest | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual analysis of the inscription and legal interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act. The court determined that the inscription clearly stipulated the religious nature of the charity and the divestment of property rights.
The court considered the arguments presented by both sides and rejected the appellants’ claims that the inscription was vague or secular. The court emphasized the specific nature of the charity (feeding Brahmins during religious festivals) and the clear intention to create an endowment for this purpose. The court also rejected the argument that there was no divestment of property, noting that the inscription restricted the alienation of the choultry and mandated the use of funds for the specified charity.
The court quoted from the rock inscription:
“all of us who do the bakery business shall hereditarily utilize the balance for the feeding of Brahmins during the festivals of Thiruvotriyur and Mylapore and for other proper charity expenses and those who conduct the charities of the aforesaid choultries shall have no right whatsoever to alienate the said choultries and anything belonging to them by way of usufuctuary mortgage, gift, sale, etc., but they shall have power to conduct the charities of the choultries appropriately, to support Brahmins therein as they deem fit and receive offerings.”
The Court also quoted from Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 951:
“…[I]t is necessary to state first the distinction in Hindu law between religious endowments which are public and those which are private. To put it briefly, the essential distinction is that in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained.”
The Court also quoted from The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1916:
“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 festival.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- A rock inscription can create a valid “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, if it clearly specifies a religious charity.
- Feeding Brahmins during specific Hindu festivals qualifies as a religious charity.
- Divestment of property rights, such as restrictions on alienation and mandated use of funds for charity, is essential for creating a valid endowment.
- The definition of “religious charity” includes public charities associated with Hindu festivals, even if not directly connected to a temple or math.
Directions
The Supreme Court vacated the status quo order granted on May 14, 2010.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a rock inscription that clearly stipulates a religious charity, such as feeding Brahmins during specific Hindu festivals, and divests the property rights by restricting alienation and mandating the use of funds for the specified charity, constitutes a “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of “specific endowment” and “religious charity” under the Act and reinforces the importance of considering the intent and purpose behind charitable endowments. There is no change in the previous position of law, but only a clarification.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that the “Bakers Choultry” constitutes a “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court held that the rock inscription clearly mandated a religious charity and resulted in a divestment of property rights, thereby bringing the choultry within the ambit of the Act. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of “specific endowment” and “religious charity” under the Act.