Holding

The Deed of Settlement creates a specific endowment in favour of a religious charity, making the trust a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and consequently the civil suit for sale is barred and must be dealt with by the Commissioner under Section 34.

Summary

The appellant, the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy, challenged a suit filed by the Anandhana Trust seeking civil‑court permission to sell a portion of a property that had been endowed for charitable activities associated with the deity. The central question was whether the 1901 Deed of Settlement created a ‘specific endowment’ under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, thereby rendering the trust a public religious endowment subject to the Act. The Court examined the deed as a whole, held that the settlor intended to divest himself and his heirs of the land and endow it for a religious charity benefiting devotees during Hindu festivals, satisfying the criteria of a specific endowment under s.6(19) and s.6(16). Consequently, Section 34 of the Act, which requires Commissioner approval for alienation, applied and Section 108 barred civil‑court jurisdiction over the matter. The appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the suit dismissed, directing the parties to follow the statutory procedure.

Issues considered

The Deed of Settlement creates a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Whether the first respondent trust is a public religious trust governed by the Act.
Whether Section 34 of the Act, requiring Commissioner sanction for alienation of endowed property, applies to the proposed sale.
Whether Section 108 bars civil‑court jurisdiction in disputes concerning the administration of a religious endowment.
Whether the applicability of the Act depends on a government notification under Section 3.

Legislation cited

Indian Trusts Act, 1882s. 1
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959s. 108, s. 3, s. 34, s. 6(16), s. 6(19)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 10

Subjects

specific endowmentTamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Actreligious charitypublic trustsection 34section 108civil court jurisdictiondeed of settlementproperty alienationHindu festivals

Judgment

410 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 410 [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A THE IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REPRESENTED BY
ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOINT COMMISSIONER
v.
PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
B AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9492 Of 2019)
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
C AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 – ss.6(16), 6(19), 34, 108 – Person purchased property for
performing charitable work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy
sanctum – On a portion, a Stone Mandapam was constructed for
D the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy, to invite and receive its blessings
during Hindu festival months – He executed a Deed of Settlement
inter alia prohibiting the trustees from sale/mortgage of the property
– First respondent-trust filed suit seeking permission for sale of the
property leaving aside the area consisting the ‘Stone Mandapam’–
Suit decreed – Judgment upheld – Appellant filed second appeal,
E
dismissed by High Court – Held: Deed of Settlement must be
examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor –
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 – Deed of Settlement created an endowment for
F charitable purposes – Charity described in the Deed of Settlement
is a religious charity u/s.6(16) – First respondent trust is a specific
endowment under the 1959 Act – As long as there exists a specific
endowment defined in s.6(19), the provisions of the 1959 Act will
apply to first respondent – s.108 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts
to try matters regulated by 1959 Act – Thus, suit filed by first
G
respondent is not maintainable as u/s.34, the Commissioner is the
appropriate authority to approve the proposed sale of land – Order
of High Court set aside – Suit filed by first respondent dismissed –
Trust.

H
410
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 411
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, A
1959 – s.6(19) – Specific endowment – Held: A specific endowment
can result from the allocation of either property or money (or both)
which 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 charity”.
B
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959– s.6(16) – Religious Charity – Conditions to be met –
Discussed.
Trust/Charity – Public or private – Distinction – Held: Where
the beneficiaries of a trust/charity are limited to a finite group of C
identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character
– However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large or
an amorphous, fluctuating body of persons incapable of being
specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character
– Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959. D

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1959 – s.3 – Applicability of – Discussed.
Words & Expressions – ‘endow’ – Meaning of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court E
HELD: 1.1 The existence of a specific endowment is a
question to be determined in the light of the material terms used
in the Deed of Settlement. The nature of the instrument must be
ascertained on a fair and reasonable construction of the Deed
considered as a whole. Section 6(19), Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious F
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 defines a specific
endowment. A 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
G
performance of “any other religious charity”. The term “endow”
means to give or bequeath a thing, property or otherwise. Where
the text of the deed purports to divest the property from the
settlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the property has
been endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not be
absolute towards the charitable purpose and may reserve some H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A portion of the property or resultant income from the property for
the legal heirs of the settlor. 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
B
prohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage of the suit
property. With respect to the legal heirs, the Deed of Settlement
creates an obligation on the settlor’s 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
C 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. [Paras 9-10 and
14][420-E; 422-G; 423-B, E-F; 424-F-H; 425-A]
Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v Duddukuru Subba
D Rao AIR 1957 SC 797 : [1957] SCR 1122 – followed.
1.2 A “specific endowment” can be for either a specific
charity or service associated with a particular math or temple, or
alternatively, can be for the performance of “any other religious
charity”. Some guidance on how to distinguish an endowment to
E a particular temple and a “religious charity” generally can be
found in the Act of 1959 itself. The term “religious charity” has
been defined in Section 6(16). The definition also clarifies that a
“religious charity” may be distinct from a charity associated with
a particular temple, and for a charity to constitute a “religious
charity”, there is no requirement for the public charity to be
F connected with a particular temple or a math. In terms of the
statutory definition, for a charity to constitute a “religious charity”
under the Act of 1959, two conditions must be met. First, it must
be a “public charity” and second, it must be “associated with” a
Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. If these
G two conditions are satisfied, a charity is a “religious charity”.
Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finite
group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private
character. However, where the beneficiaries are either the public
at large or an amorphous and fluctuating body of persons incapable
of being specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public
H
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 413
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST

character. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states A
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
B
respondent trust is a public trust. The next criteria that must be
fulfilled for a charity to constitute a “religious charity” under
Section 6(16) is that the public charity must be associated with a
Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. Further,
for a religious charity to be “associated” with a Hindu festival,
the work of the charity must be “connected with” or “in relation C
to” the festival. The test is not whether the particular temple or
authority administering the festival exercises any control over
the activities of the charity. Where there exists a nexus between
the charitable work and the occurrence of the festival, the charity
is “associated with” the festival. Where the charity has a “public”
D
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 1959. [Paras 15, 16, 18 and 19][425-B, C, E;
426-C-G; 427-F-G; 429-A]
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S P Sahi [1959] Suppl. 2
SCR 583 – followed. E

Commr, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar AIR 1965 SC 1916:
[1965] 3 SCR 168; K S Soundararajan v. Commr of
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (2016) 15
SCC 597: [2015] 10 SCR 176 – relied on. F

1.3 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 G
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 activities
of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithirai
Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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). Where money
(or property) is endowed for the performance of a religious charity,
C 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. [Para 20][429-B-F]
M J Thulasiraman v. Hindu Religious & Charitable
Endowment Admn (2019) 8 SCC 689 : [2019] 11 SCR
D 1125 – relied on.
1.4 The Deed of Settlement did not create a specific
endowment in favour of the appellant. However, the activities of
the first respondent trust do satisfy the definition of a “religious
charity” under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the specific endowment
E created by the Deed of Settlement is not in favour of the appellant
idol but an endowment to a religious charity. 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
F jurisdiction of civil courts to try matters regulated by the
provisions of the Act of 1959. 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
G 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

H
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 415
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST

authority to approve the proposed sale of land by the first A
respondent. [Para 22][430-C, D, F; 431-A; 432-A]
1.5 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 B
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 C
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. 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. D
Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the
first respondent. The order of the Single Judge of the Madurai
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras is set aside. In
consequence, the suit filed by the first respondent shall stand
dismissed. [Paras 23, 24][432-C-F]
E
Case Law Reference
[1957] SCR 1122 followed Para 13
[1959] 2 Suppl. SCR 583 followed Para 16
[2019] 11 SCR 1125 relied on Para 16 F
[1965] SCR 168 relied on Para 17
[2015] 10 SCR 176 relied on Para 18
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9492
of 2019.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2016 of the Madurai
Bench of the Madras High Court in S.A. (MD) No. 438 of 2006.
Mohan Parasaran, Sr. Adv., V. Prabhakar, Ms. Jyoti Parasher,
N. J. Ramchandar, S. Rajappa, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A Arunava Mukherjee, Shangar Murali, Anand Sathiyaseelan, Balaji
Srinivasan, Ms. Malini Poduval, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
B 1. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 1 December 2016 of
a Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature at
Madras.The High Court dismissed the appellant’s second appeal and
upheldthe judgment dated 31 August 2005 of the Principal District Judge,
Tiruchirapalli and the decree dated 10 November 2004 of the Second
Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, permitting the first
C respondent to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth respondent.
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
D ‘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
E days during the Gajendra Moksham and Eighteen Padi festivals from
the “Mahimai” fund (God’s account), which was established from his
granary business. After fourteen continuous years of carrying onthese
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
F 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
judgement.
3. 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
G 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 a suit1 for eviction of the
encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy. Owing to

H
1 OS No 706 of 1984
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 417
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing A
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
B
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 feet.
4. The first respondent instituted a suit2 in 2004 before the Second
Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for sale C
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 D
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 19593. According to the appellant,under E
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 jurisdiction.
5. On 10 November 2004, the Second Additional Subordinate Judge
decreed the first respondent’s suit and held that the Act of 1959 was not F
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 G
had no applicability and the proposed sale could be sanctioned only by a
civil court.

2 O S 60 of 2004
3 “Act of 1959” H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 6. 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
B
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.
7. Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
C behalf of the appellant assailed the judgment of the High Court on the
following grounds:
(i) The Deed of Settlement stated that Thoppulan Chettiarhad
purchased the property for the performance of the
charitablework with reference to Sri Renganathaswamy
D sanctum. Thoppulan Chettiar raised the deity in the black
stone hall constructed for the said purpose. The suit property
had been reserved and allotted for the work of charity and
had therefore lost its secular character;
(ii) According to the Deed of Settlement, during the
E GajendraMoksham and Eighteen Padi festivals, water and
millet porridge was to be distributed when the idol is kept in
the aforesaid black stone hall. Hence, a religious charitable
endowment had been created and attached with the festivals
of the appellant temple and therefore, dedication of the
F property for creation of an endowment of a religious
character stood established;
(iii) The charity was to be performed from the income derived
from the suit property. If the income was found to be higher,
the excess income was to be kept as reserve family fund;
G (iv) The trustees were prohibited from selling or mortgaging
the suit property specifically dedicated for the purpose of
the charity;
(v) The suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable as
Section 34 of the Act of 1959 empowers the Commissioner
H to sanction any sale of the property governed by the Act of
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 419
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

1959. The Section makes it clear that the sanction cannot A
be given without the approval of the Government and any
sale without the approval would be null and void; and
(vi) The first respondent cannot seek sanction of the civil court
to sell an endowed property as Section 108 of Act of 1959
bars a civil suit from being instituted in respect of matters B
covered by the provisions of the Act of 1959.
8. Opposing these submissions, Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that:
(i) The provisions of the Act of 1959 are not applicable to the
first respondent. Under Section 3, the provisions of the Act C
of 1959 are applicable to charitable endowments only upon
the issuance of a notification by the government on grounds
of mismanagement or mala dministration by the trustees.
There exists no notification extending the applicability of
the provisions of the Act of 1959 to the first respondent D
trust;
(ii) The charities to be undertaken by the private trust are not
confined to only Hindus. The first respondent is a secular
trust established for the public in general and without any
distinction on grounds of religion, caste or creed; E
(iii) The Deed of Settlement does not create any specific
endowment in favour of the appellant deity. The
performance of the public charity is not directed to be
performed in the temple and the charity is to be performed
only at the suit property; F
(iv) The management and administration of the first respondent
trust is only dealt with by the lineal descendants of the
founder of the trust. The HR & CE Department never
appointed any trustees and no member of the public
participated in the management of the first respondent trust;
G
(v) The civil court has the jurisdiction in respect of the suit filed
by the first respondent seeking permission for the sale of
the suit property. Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act 1882

H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A will have no applicability to the first respondent trust as it
exempts both public and private charitable endowments;
(vi)The restraint createdin the Deed of Settlement is voidunder
Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.4 The
trustees of the first respondent are not able to perform the
B charities on account of encroachments in the suit property.
By virtue of the doctrine of cypres, the suit property should
be allowed to be sold to the fourth respondent for the purpose
of fulfilling the intention of the settlor to carry out the charity;
and
(vii) DW5, the assistant superintendent of the temple, admitted
C
during his cross-examination that the temple never exercised
any control over the respondent trust and there is no
dedication of the suit property in favour of the temple.
The rival submissions fall for consideration.
9. The question that arisesfor our consideration is whether the
D
Deed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901creates a specific endowment,
regulated by the Act of 1959.In order to adjudicate upon the dispute, it is
necessary for this Court to determine the nature of the endowment under
the Deed of Settlement. The existence of a specific endowment is a
question to be determined in the light of the material terms used in the
E Deed of Settlement. The nature of the instrumentmust be ascertained
on a fair and reasonable construction of the Deed considered as a
whole.The terms of the Deed of Settlement are as follows:
“Settlement Deed
This deed of settlement is made on 8th July of 1901 by Thoppulan
F Chettiar aged 75, s/o Krishnan Chettiar, Mettu Street, Palakarai,
Thiruchirapalli.
The settler purchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule of
property out of his own income on 02.06.1887 for the performance
of charity work in reference to Sri Renganathaswamy sanctum
for a Rs. 750/- on that from the built sturdy buildings and for
G
raising Renganathaswamy, in black stone hall. Out of the income
derived from his business in Palakarai and from the yearly income
from the farm land, raised Renganathaswamy in the black stone
hall during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festival’s and

H
4 “Transfer of Property Act”
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 421
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

for the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has been A
erecting water shed and distributing millet porridge for three days
and has been performing this for 14 years. He is still ready to
continue this till his life time. After his life time, for continuing this
charity work his son T. Ramiah Chetty and his brother
T.Thiruvenkidenchetty, Sivalingam padayachi geethapuram
B
Rengapuram M.C.Veeranan alias umman Maniyakaran Maruthai
Maniyakaran Geethapuram Rengamaniyakaran’s son Appavu
Maniakaran T.S.Kasthoori these people asked not to sell or
mortgage the said property. Three sons of the settler have
to continue this charity work after the settlor’s life time. If
any of the 3 is not interested in doing this others should not trouble C
him.After the three sons should bear the expenses of these
charity work out of their business. After their life time it should
be continued by their heirs and continue to receive the reverence.
If the income is higher, they should keep it as family fund
after meeting the expenses. If it is low, they should meet
D
the expenses out of the family fund.This charity work is
not liable for family debts or the debts incurred by 3 sons.
Settlor obtained their consent and signatures of 2 sons mentioned
below.Stone well farm is reserved for doing charity work.
Property allotted for charity work:
Trichy District, Srirangam Sub District, Melur region, E
Geethapuram, Raghunathpuram
South – Lakshmi Ammanakar farm
West – Namasivaye Asari farm
East – Amma Mandakepadi F
Punja land kuli 66, Black stone hall on that farm, municipal number
440 worth Rs. 3,000/- maintenance of this land and the black
stone hall is being carried out by the settler and after his life time
the said 3 sons should continue to maintain them.”
(Emphasis supplied) G

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, H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 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;
B (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;
C
(iii) During the lifetime of Thoppulan Chettiar, these charitable
activities were financed out of the “Mahimai” fund (God’s
account), which was replenished by both the settlor’s own
business income and the income arising from the suit
property;
D
(iv) After the settlor’s 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
E 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
F 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 sons.
10. In order to determine whether the Deed of Settlement creates
a specific endowment regulated by the Act of 1959, it is necessary to
G refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 6(19) defines a specific
endowment as follows:
“6. (19) “specific endowment” means 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
H
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 423
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in A
Explanation (1) to clause (17);”
A 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 B
religious charity”.
11. 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 settlor’s C
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 “money” and we only have to deal with the question of
whether the suit property itself was endowed. Accordingly, we now
analyse the provisions of the deed and turn to the question of whether
the suit property was endowed, and if it was, whether such endowment D
was in favour of a specific temple or for the performance of “religious
charity”.
12. The term “endow” means to give or bequeath a thing, property
or otherwise.Where the text of the deed purports to divest the property
from the settlor and reserves it for a charitable purpose, the property E
has been endowed. In certain cases, an endowment may not be absolute
towards the charitable purpose and may reserve some portion of the
property or resultant income from the property for the legal heirs of the
settlor. The question of whether the settlor intended the religious purpose
to be the primary beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the legal F
heirs of the settlor, or whether the heirs were the primary beneficiaries
subject to a charge towards the continuation of the charitable purpose
must be determined by reading the settlement deed as a whole.
13. In Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v Duddukuru Subba
5
Rao , a Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with the question of G
whether the suit properties were the subject-matter of a public charitable
trust or were merely charged with the obligation to undertake specific
charities. Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then
was), speaking for the Court, held:
5 AIR 1957 SC 797 H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A “5. … Now it is clear that dedication of a property to religious or
charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the
dedication is complete, a trust in favour of public religious
charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in
favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of
the charity is attached to, and follows, the property which
B
retains its original private and secular character. Whether
or not dedication is complete would naturally be a question
of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the
material terms used in the document. In such cases it is
always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the
C parties; it is obvious that such intention must be gathered
on a fair and reasonable construction of the document
considered as a whole. The use of the word “trust” or “trustee”
is no doubt of some help in determining such intention; but the
mere use of such words cannot be treated as decisive of the
matter. Is the private title over the property intended to be
D
completely extinguished? Is the title in regard to the property
intended to be completely transferred to the charity? The answer
to these questions can be found not by concentrating on the
significance of the use of the word “trustee” or “trust” alone but
by gathering the true intent of the document considered as a
E whole...”
(Emphasis supplied)
14. 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
F 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
G 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 settlor’s
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
H
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 425
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of the A
endowment was to carry on charitable work.The Deed of Settlement
obligates the legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit
property.
15. Having established that the Deed of Settlement created an
endowment for charitable purposes, we now turn to whether the B
endowment was a “specific endowment” as defined under Section 6(19)of
the Act of 1959. As noted above, a “specific endowment” can be for
either a specific charity or service associated with a particular math or
temple, or alternatively, can be for the performance of “any other religious
charity”. Some guidance on how to distinguish an endowment to a
particular temple and a “religious charity” generally can be found in the C
Act of 1959 itself. The term “religious charity” has been defined in Section
6(16) as follows:
“6. (16) “religious charity” means 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;” D

The definition also clarifies that a “religious charity” may be distinct
from a charity associated with a particular temple, and for a charity to
constitute a “religious charity”, there is no requirement for the public
charity to be connected with a particular temple or a math. In terms of
the statutory definition, for a charity to constitute a “religious charity” E
under the Act of 1959, two conditions must be met. First, it must be a
“public charity”and second, it must be “associated with” a Hindu festival
or observance of a religious character.If these two conditions are satisfied,
a charity is a “religious charity”.
16. The distinction between a public and private charity was set F
out by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mahant Ram
Saroop Dasji v S P Sahi6. In that case, the Court had to determine
whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (1 of 1951) applied to
both public as well as private trusts. It described the difference between
public and private charities as follows: G
“6. ...it 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

6 1959 Supp (2) SCR 583 H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 fact that the uncertain and
B
fluctuating body of persons is a section of the public following a
particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain
religious persuasion would not make any difference in the matter
and would not make the trust a private trust...”
(Emphasis supplied)
C
Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finite
group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character.
However, where the beneficiaries are either the public at large or an
amorphous and fluctuating body of persons incapable of being specifically
identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character. This test has
D been consistently followed by subsequent benches of this Court, most
recently in a three judge Bench decision of this Court in M J
Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn7.
In 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
E 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 trust.
17. The next criteria that must be fulfilled for a charity to constitute
F a “religious charity” under Section 6(16) is that the public charity must
be associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character.
The term “associated with” as constitutive of the relationship between
the charity and the Hindu festival has been interpreted in a three-judge
Bench decision of this Court in Commr, Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments v NarayanaAyyangar8, where a fund
G was set up for carrying out charity in relation to feeding Brahmins
attending the Sri PrasannaVenkatachalapathiswami shrine on the occasion

7(2019) 8 SCC 689
8AIR 1965 SC 1916. Relied upon in M J Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious &
H Charitable Endowment Admn (2019) 8 SCC 689.
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 427
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of Rathotsavam festival. The question before this Court was whether A
the fund set up for the purpose of feeding the Brahmins was a “religious
charity” within the meaning of Section 6(13) of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1951. Justice J C Shah,
speaking for this Court held:
“5. … The expression “associated” in Section 6(13)of Act 19 of B
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.
C
...
7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of the
Rathotsavam festival of Sri PrasannaVenkatachalapathiswami
shrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and the object
of the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine on the D
occasion of this festival. It is not disputed that setting up a Fund
for feeding Brahmins is a public charity. The primary purpose
of the charity is to feed Brahmin pilgrims attending the
Rathotsavam.This public charity has therefore a real
connection with the Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festival
of a religious character, and therefore, it is a religious charity E
within the meaning of Section 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of
1951.”
(Emphasis supplied)
18. For a religious charity to be “associated” with a Hindu festival, F
the work of the charity must be “connected with” or “in relation to” the
festival. The test is not whether the particular temple or authority
administering the festival exercises any control over the activities of the
charity. Where there exists a nexus between the charitable work and
the occurrence of the festival, the charity is “associated with” the festival.
In a two-judge Bench decision of this Court in K S Soundararajan v G
Commr of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments9, this Court
had to determine whether offering food to people on the occasion of a
deity passing through a river on a specific festival was a religious charity.

9 (2016) 15 SCC 597 H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A This Court relied upon the decisions in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji and
Commr, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
and held that the abovementioned charity was a religious charity and it
was within the ambit of the High Court to pass orders regarding the
framing of a scheme under Section 64 of the Act of 1959.
B 19. In a recent decision of this Court in M J Thulasiramanv
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Administrator10, this
Court had to determine whether an inscription on a rock found in the
“Bakers Choultry” constituted a “specific endowment” under the Act of
1959. The inscription stated that the money from the “Bakers Choultry”
must be used to feed certain Brahmins. Justice N V Ramana, speaking
C for a three judge bench of this Court held that the inscription created a
specific endowment. The Court held:
“14. In the present case, the rock inscription in the “Bakers
Choultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry, provides
for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity which benefits
D the “public”, in line with the holding of the aforementioned
Constitution Bench decision of this Court.
15. Further, the rock inscription specifically states that the charity
of feeding the Brahmins is to be done at the time of specific
religious festivals viz. “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which
E is held in the Mylapore temple, and the festival in Sri
Thiagarajaswami temple, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai …
16. As such, the public charity in the rock inscription, being
associated with a religious festival, constitutes a religious
charity as defined under the Act.
F
17. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act,
the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money which
has been endowed for the performance of a religious charity.
Following our holding that the rock inscription provides
for a religious charity, it is sufficient to show that money
G has been endowed for the performance of the same for it to
constitute a specific endowment under the Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)

H
10 (2019) 8 SCC 689
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 429
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The decision of the three judge bench in M J Thulasiraman A
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
1959.
20. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement states that the B
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. C
The Deed of Settlement spells out that the charitable acts carried out by
the settlor:
“during Chithirai Gajendra Motcham and padi 18 festival’s and
for the benefit of the devotees during these festivals has been
erecting water shed and distributing millet porridge for three days” D

The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with
Chithirai Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity
is tobe 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 E
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. F
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. G
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 H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F
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
G 3411 of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate authority to
approve the proposed sale of land by the first respondent.
11
Alienation of immovable trust property.—(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage and
any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or
given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void
unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the
H institution :
IDOL OF SRI RENGANATHASWAMY REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 431
JOINT COMMR. v. PK THOPPULAN CHETTIAR, RAMANUJA KOODAM
ANANDHANA TRUST [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has A
raised the argument that under Section 312 of the Act of 1959, the
provisions of the Act are applicable to charitable endowments only upon
Provided that before such sanction is accorded, the particulars relating to the proposed
transaction shall be published in such manner as may be prescribed, inviting objections
and suggestions with respect thereto; and all objections and suggestions received from
the trustee or other persons having interest shall be duly consider by the Commissioner: B
Provided further that the Commissioner shall not accord such sanction without the
previous approval of the Government.
Explanation.—Any lease of the property above mentioned through for a term not
exceeding five years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal for a further term (so as
to exceed five years in the aggregate), whether subject to any condition or not, be
deemed to be a lease for a period exceeding five years.
C
(2) When according such sanction, the Commissioner may impose such conditions and
give such direction, as he may deem necessary regarding the utilization of the amount
raised by the transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage regarding
the discharge of the same within a reasonable period.
(3) A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this section shall be
communicated to the Government and to the trustee and shall be published in such
manner as may be prescribed. D
(4) The trustee may, within three months from the date of his receipt of a copy of the
order, and any person having interest may within three months from the date of the
publication of the order appeal to the Court to modify the order or set it aside.
(4-A) The Government may issue such directions to the Commissioner as in their
opinion are necessary, in respect of any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of any
immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious
institution and the Commissioner shall give effect to all such directions. E
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the imams referred to in section 41.
12
Power to extend Act to Charitable Endowments.—(1) Where the Government
have reason to believe that any Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment is being
mismanaged, they may direct the Commissioner to inquire, or to cause an inquiry to be
made by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, into the affairs of such charitable
endowment and to report to them whether, in the interests of the administration of
such charitable endowment, it is necessary to extend thereto all or any of the provisions F
of this Act and of any rules made thereunder.
(2) The Commissioner or the officer authorized by him under sub-section (1) shall,
while making an inquiry under that sub-section, have all the powers of a Civil Court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for the purposes of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of books, accounts,
documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of such
G
charitable endowments and shall follow the procedure applicable under the said Code
in regard to recording of evidence and hearing of parties.
(3) If, after considering the report of the Commissioner submitted under sub-section
(1), the Government are satisfied that such charitable endowment is being mismanaged
and that, in the interests of the administration of such charitable endowment, it is
necessary to extend thereto all or any of the provisions of this Act and of any rules
made thereunder, they may, by notification, extend to such charitable endowment the H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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,
D the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to the first respondent.
24. For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the
order of the Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras. In consequence, the suit filed by the first respondent
shall stand dismissed. However, the first respondent is at liberty to adopt
E the prescribed procedure under the Act of 1959.There shall be no order
as to costs.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

said provisions, and thereupon, the provisions so extended shall apply to such charitable
F endowment as if it were a specific endowment :
Provided that before issuing such a notification, the Government shall publish in the
*Fort St. George Gazette, a notice of their intention to do so, specifying the reasons for
the action proposed to be taken by them and fixing a period which shall not be less than
two months from the date of publication of the notice, for the persons interested in the
endowment concerned to show cause against the issue of the notification and consider
their objections, if any.
G (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Government may, on
application made by the trustee of any Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment, or
where there are more trustees than one, then by those trustees or a majority of them and
with the concurrence of the trustee or trustees making the application, extend, by
notification, to such charitable endowment all or any of the provisions of this Act and
of any rules made thereunder, and thereupon the provisions so extended shall apply to
such charitable endowment as if it were a specific endowment.
H