Supreme Court Defines Specific Endowment Under Tamil Nadu HR & CE Act: W.N. Allal Sundaram vs. Commissioner, HR & CE Admn. Department (22 November 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1362
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Ajay Rastogi, J

Can a property given for the construction of a choultry (a resting place for travelers) near a temple be considered a “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of “specific endowment” and its implications for religious and charitable institutions.

The core issue revolved around whether a deed of settlement, which entrusted a property for constructing a choultry for the use of devotees, constituted a specific endowment, thus bringing it under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court had to interpret the definition of “specific endowment” under the Act and determine if the given property fell within that definition.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, who authored the opinion, and Ajay Rastogi, J. There were no concurring or dissenting opinions.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute over a property in Madras. The appellant, W.N. Allal Sundaram, claimed that a trust created by his predecessor, Bagyammal, was a private family trust and not a public trust. The dispute centered on a property that was originally settled in favor of Bagyammal by the trustees of the Sree Agastheeswara Swamiya Devasthanam Temple in 1926. The property was to be used for the construction of a choultry for the benefit of devotees visiting the temple.

In 1921, the Temple Trustees had given a plot of land to Mangadu Ellappa Chettiar for a choultry. However, this choultry was inadequate for the number of devotees. Therefore, the Trustees agreed to give the property to Bagyammal for constructing another choultry. Bagyammal was to maintain the choultry and ensure it was used by the public. The appellant, W.N. Allal Sundaram, claimed to have inherited the property through a series of family settlements and argued that the trust was private and not subject to the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

The Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department, declared the Bagyammal Trust as a public trust. The appellant’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner, leading to the suit before the City Civil Court at Madras.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Madras, challenging the order of the Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department, which declared the Bagyammal Trust as a public trust. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the trust was not a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. However, the High Court of Judicature at Madras reversed this decision, holding that the deed of settlement did constitute a specific endowment.

The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed as not maintainable. Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which granted leave to appeal. The Supreme Court then heard the appeal and delivered the final judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, specifically:

• Section 6(19) 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.”
• Section 6(16) defines “religious charity” as “a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not.”
• Section 6(17) defines “religious endowment” as “all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity.”
• Section 63(d) empowers the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to inquire into and decide disputes regarding “whether any property or money is a specific endowment.”
• Section 70 allows a party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner in appeal, relating to any of the matters specified in Section 63, to institute a suit.

These provisions are crucial in determining whether the property in question, which was given for the construction of a choultry, falls under the ambit of the Act as a specific endowment. The Act aims to regulate and administer Hindu religious and charitable institutions and endowments in Tamil Nadu.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the trust created by Bagyammal was a private family trust and not a public trust.
• The appellant contended that the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 did not create a “specific endowment” within the meaning of Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
• The appellant claimed that the property was settled in favor of Bagyammal, who was to maintain the choultry, and that this did not amount to an endowment for a religious or public purpose.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Deed of Settlement clearly indicated that the choultry was to be constructed for the benefit of the devotees of the Sree Agastheeswara Swamiyar Devasthanam Temple.
• The respondents submitted that the choultry was intended for public use, particularly for devotees visiting the temple during festivals.
• The respondents contended that the deed restricted Bagyammal from creating any encumbrance on the property, indicating that it was meant for a public purpose.
• The respondents stated that the property was endowed specifically for a religious charity and thus fell under the definition of “specific endowment” under Section 6(19) of the Act.

Innovativeness of the argument: The respondents effectively argued that the Deed of Settlement, despite being in favor of Bagyammal, was intended to benefit the public and was therefore a specific endowment under the Act. This argument focused on the purpose of the endowment rather than just the beneficiary, which was a key factor in the Court’s decision.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 constituted a “specific endowment” within the meaning of Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court in Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v Narayana Ayyangar [(1965) 3 SCR 168] was used to define religious charity as a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character.
• The Supreme Court in M J Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn [(2019) 8 SCC 689] was used to define the term “endowment” as giving, bequeathing or dedicating something for a religious or charitable purpose, and that a choultry for feeding Brahmins during religious festivals was a religious charity and thus a specific endowment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The clear intention of the Deed of Settlement was to provide a public facility for devotees of the temple.
• The restrictions imposed on Bagyammal regarding the use and encumbrance of the property indicated a public purpose.
• The definition of “specific endowment” under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which includes property endowed for religious charity.
• The interpretation of “religious charity” as a public charity associated with Hindu festivals or observances of a religious character.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the Deed of Settlement clearly indicated a public religious purpose. The Court emphasized that the property was endowed for a specific religious charity, thus satisfying the definition of “specific endowment” under the Act.

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the facts and legal provisions, concluded that the Deed of Settlement did create a specific endowment. The Court reasoned that the choultry was intended for public use, particularly for devotees of the temple, and that the restrictions on Bagyammal’s rights further supported this conclusion.

The court highlighted the following reasons for its decision:

• The Deed of Settlement explicitly stated that the choultry was for the use of the public.
• Bagyammal was restricted from claiming any rights over the choultry.
• The choultry was to be maintained by Bagyammal and her successors for the benefit of the public.
• The purpose of the endowment was to provide a religious charity for the devotees of the temple.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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 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).”

Key Takeaways

• Properties endowed for the construction of facilities like choultries near temples, intended for public use, can be considered “specific endowments” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
• The intention and purpose of the endowment, rather than just the beneficiary, are crucial in determining whether it falls under the definition of “specific endowment.”
• Restrictions on the rights of the beneficiary over the property can indicate that the endowment is for a public purpose.

The judgment clarifies the scope of “specific endowment” under the Act, which could have significant implications for similar cases involving religious and charitable properties. It emphasizes the importance of considering the purpose and intention behind the endowment, rather than just the immediate beneficiary. This could lead to more properties being brought under the purview of the Act, ensuring better management and governance of religious and charitable institutions in Tamil Nadu.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions in this judgment. The Court simply dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a property given for the construction of a choultry near a temple, intended for public use, constitutes a “specific endowment” under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. This judgment reinforces the principle that the purpose and intention of the endowment, rather than just the beneficiary, are key factors in determining whether it falls under the purview of the Act.

This judgment does not change any previous positions of law but rather clarifies and reinforces the existing legal framework. It provides a clear interpretation of the term “specific endowment” and its application to similar cases involving religious and charitable properties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision that the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 created a “specific endowment” under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Court emphasized that the property was intended for public use as a choultry for devotees of the temple and was thus a religious charity within the meaning of the Act. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of “specific endowment” and reinforces the importance of considering the purpose and intention behind an endowment.