THULASIRAMAN AND ANOTHERversusTHE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER

                         [2019] 11 S.C.R. 1125                          1125


            M. J. THULASIRAMAN AND ANOTHER                              A
                                 v.
 THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
    ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER
                   (Civil Appeal No.4676 of 2010)                       B
                      SEPTEMBER 03, 2019
    [N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
               AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
      Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments              C
Act, 1959:
      s. 6(16) and (19) - Institution in question - Nature of -
Whether a private property or 'specific endowment' - Held: As
per the evidence (rock inscription), the public charity described
therein constitutes a religious charity - Thus it creates a 'specific   D
endowment' as specified u/s. 6(19) - Therefore, the property in
question constitutes a specific endowment and is not a private
property.
      Words and Phrases:
     'Specific endowment', 'religious charity' - Meaning of, in         E
the context of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable
endowments Act, 1959.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. A “specific endowment” means any property or             F
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. In the present case there is no question of
performing the service in the temple or a math, the endowment
in the present case must fall under the second category, i.e., it
must be for the performance of a religious charity, to be a             G
specific endowment. [Para 10] [1131-F]
       2. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a public
charity associated with Hindu festival or observance of a
religious character. The second part of Section 6(16) of the Tamil
                                                                        H
                                1125
1126            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A     Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Act, 1959
       clarifies that there is no requirement for the public charity to
       be connected with a temple or a math. The phrase “public
       charity” has not been specifically defined under the Act. The
       distinction in Hindu law between religious endowments which
       are public and those which are private is that in a public trust
 B
       the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating
       body of persons. The fact that the uncertain and 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
 C     would not make the trust a private trust. [Paras 11, 12] [1132-
       A-D]
             Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC
             951 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 583 - followed.
              3. In the present case, the rock inscription in the
 D     institution in question which governs the functioning of the
       institution provides for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly
       a charity which benefits the “public”. The rock inscription
       specifically states that the charity of feeding the Brahmins is to
       be done at the time of specific religious festivals, viz.,
 E     “Arubathumoovar Brahmotsavam” which is held in the Mylapore
       temple, and the festival in Sri Thiagarajaswami temple,
       Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. As such, the public charity described in
       the rock inscription, being associated with a religious festival,
       constitutes a religious charity as defined under the Act. [Paras
       13, 14 and 15] [1132-E-G; 1133-B]
 F
             The Commissioner, Madras Hindu Religious and
             Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and
             Ors. AIR 1965 SC 1916 : [1965] SCR 168 - relied
             on.
             4. Under Section 6(19) of the Act, the definition of “specific
 G     endowment” includes any money that has been endowed for the
       performance of a religious charity. As it is held that the rock
       inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient to
       show that money has been endowed for the performance of the
       same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act.
 H     [Para 16] [1133-C]
   M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &               1127
           CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION


       5. While the word “endow”, and the connected word               A
“endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act,
from their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is
clear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or
dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for some
purpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with respect
                                                                       B
to religion or charity. [Para 17] [1133-D-E]
      Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Deputy Charity
      Commissioner Gujarat, (1987) Supp. SCC 714 :
      [1987] SCR 909 - relied on.
      The Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar Second Edn.,               C
      p. 634, 635 - referred to.
      6. In the present case, the rock inscription clearly provides
for the utilization of money from the institution in question for
the purposes of performing the charitable activity of feeding
Brahmins during the specified religious festivals. As such, it is      D
clear that the rock inscription creates a “specific endowment”
as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act, which falls within
the ambit of the Act. [Para 17] [1133-E-F]
      7. On perusal of the inscription, it cannot be said that the
rock inscription did not constitute a specific endowment as the        E
same was vague, secular in nature and did not result in any
divestment of title. The rock inscription clearly stipulates the
festivals during which the activity of feeding of Brahmins should
be conducted. Not only are these festivals Hindu festivals, but
the reference to "Brahmins" in the rock inscription itself clearly
indicates that the endowment is not of a secular nature. [Para         F
21] [1134-E-G]
      M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR
      1966 SC 653 : [1966] SCR 643 - relied on.
      8. The contents of the rock inscription are also sufficient
                                                                       G
to hold that there has been a valid divestment. The rock
inscription clearly indicates that the institution is to be managed
by the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds for
the benefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that the
managers do not have any power of alienation with respect to
the institution. [Para 22] [1135-D-E]                                  H
1128           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A           9. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been
       party to earlier proceedings, before the Charity authorities and
       the Courts, wherein he had filed pleadings to the effect that the
       “Bakers Choultry” constituted a “specific endowment”.
       Although the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant ultimately
 B     withdrew the application before the Deputy Commissioner
       wherein he made the said pleading, it is quite disingenuous of
       him to have subsequently filed an application before the
       Commissioner claiming the same property to be his personal
       property. [Para 23] [1135-F-G]
 C           K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v. Commissioner of
            Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Ors.
            (2016) 15 SCC 597 : [2015] 10 SCR 176 - relied on.
            Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Board,
            Madras v. VinayakarArudra Tiruppani Sabha, AIR
 D          1953 Madras 407 ; M.AR.AR.RM.AR. Ramanathan
            Chettiar v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and
            CharitableEndowments, Madras (1978) 91 LW 337 -
            referred to.

 E                          Case Law Reference
       AIR 1953 Madras 407             referred to         Para 4
       (1978) 91 LW 337                referred to         Para 4
       [1959] Suppl. SCR 583           followed            Para 12
 F
       [1965] SCR 168                  relied on           Para 14
       [1987] SCR 909                  relied on           Para 17
       [2015] 10 SCR 176               relied on           Para 19
 G     [1966] SCR 643                  relied on           Para 21
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4676
       of 2010.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2008 of the High
 H     Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 128 of 2000.
    M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &                     1129
            CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION


      R. N. Keswani, Ram Lal Roy, Advs. for the Appellants.                   A
      B. Vinodh Kanna, R. Nedumaran, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      N. V. RAMANA, J.
                                                                              B
      1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27.11.2008,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No.
128 of 2000, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants under Section
70(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Act, 1959 (hereinafter "the Act") was dismissed.
                                                                              C
      2. The short issue before us relates to the nature of the institution
called “Bakers Choultry”, situated at No. 23, South Mada Street,
Mylapore, Chennai- 600004, as well as the nature of the endowment it
has been burdened with.
       3. The genesis of this dispute lies in the year 1987, when the         D
appellants’ predecessor-in-interest filed an application under Section
63(a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Madras for a
declaration to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” is a private property
belonging to him, with a duty cast on him to perform certain private
charities. This application was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.1990,        E
and the appeal against the above order, before the Commissioner, Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department,
Madras, also came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.03.1994. Being
aggrieved, the appellants' predecessor-in-interest then filed a civil suit,
being Original Suit No. 4510 of 1994, under Section 70(1) of the Act,         F
challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the
Commissioner. However, this civil suit also came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 30.03.1999. An appeal being Appeal Suit No. 128 of
2000 was thereafter filed before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras, wherein due to the demise of the appellants’ predecessor-in-
interest the present appellants were brought on record as his legal           G
representatives. The High Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned
judgment dated 27.11.2008. The appellants thereafter filed the present
Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave. This Court, vide order dated
14.05.2010, directed that status quo as to possession is to be maintained
during the pendency of this appeal.                                           H
1130            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A            4. The learned counsel for the appellants, in challenging the
       concurrent findings of the Courts below, submitted that in the facts of
       the present case the Courts were incorrect in holding that a specific
       endowment existed with respect to the “Bakers Choultry’, particularly
       one relating to a religious purpose. The learned counsel has placed
       reliance upon two judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
 B
       viz., 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 support his submission that the rock
 C     inscription being vague, secular in nature, and not resulting in any
       divestment of title thereby could not be considered a “specific
       endowment” under the Act.
              5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents
       submitted that the appellants were, in effect, challenging four concurrent
 D     findings by the Courts below and the respondent authorities. He
       submitted that the arguments being raised by the appellants were already
       canvassed before the High Court, which had dismissed the appellants
       appeal by giving cogent reasoning vide the impugned judgment which
       does not merit any interference. The counsel for the respondents further
       submitted that the stone inscription found inside the choultry would reveal
 E     that a specific endowment has been created for the purpose of feeding
       “brahmins” and poor people, during certain festivals, and would
       therefore be an endowment which falls under the ambit of the Act.
       Lastly, the counsel submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the
       appellants had taken part in earlier proceedings relating to same property
 F     wherein he had claimed the property to be trust property, and as such,
       could not now claim the same to be private property.
             6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length.
              7. It is pertinent to note that the counsels for both parties, for
       the most part, confined their arguments to the interpretation of a rock
 G     inscription which is found in the “Bakers Choultry”, allegedly of the
       year 1834, to substantiate their respective claims. The rock inscription
       admittedly states the following:
             “all of us who do the bakery business shall hereditarily utilize the
             balance for the feeding of Brahmins during the festivals of
 H           Thiruvotriyur and Mylapore and for other proper charity expenses
   M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &                        1131
  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION [N.V. RAMANA, J.]


      and those who conduct the charities of the aforesaid choultries           A
      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.”
                                                                                B
      8. The question that arises for our consideration in the present
case is to interpret the above inscription and determine whether the
same amounts to a specific endowment as defined by the Act, or not.
      9. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to have a look at
Sections 6(19) and 6(16) of the Act. Section 6(19) of the Act defines           C
the phrase “specific endowment” and is as extracted below:
      (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
      charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in          D
      Explanation (1) to clause (17);
      xxx
      Section 6(16) of the Act defines a “religious charity” as below:
      (16) “religious charity” means a public charity associated with           E
      Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it
      be connected with a math or temple or not;
         10. From the above, it is clear that a “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            F
other religious charity. As it is admitted that in the present case there
is no question of performing the service in the temple or a math, the
endowment in the present case must fall under the second category,
i.e., it must be for the performance of a religious charity, to be a specific
endowment.                                                                      G
      11. A “religious charity” has been defined to mean a public charity
associated with Hindu festival or observance of a religious character.
The second part of Section 6(16) of the Act clarifies that there is no
requirement for the public charity to be connected with a temple or a
math.                                                                           H
1132             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A            12. While the phrase “public charity” has not been specifically
       defined under the Act, some guidance as to its interpretation can be
       derived from a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mahant
       Ram Saroop Dasji v. S.P. Sahi, AIR 1959 SC 951, wherein the Court,
       while determining whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (1 of
       1951) applied to both public trusts as well as private trusts, observed
 B
       as follows:
             “6. ... [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
 C
             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 fluctuating body
 D           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)
 E
             13. 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 the
       “public”, in line with the holding of the aforementioned Constitution
       Bench decision of this Court.
 F
              14. 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 is held in the
       Mylapore temple, and the festival in Sri Thiagarajaswami temple,
       Thiruvotriyur, Chennai. The phrase “associated with” in the definition
 G     of religious charity has been interpreted in a three-Judge Bench decision
       of this Court, in the case of The Commissioner, Madras Hindu
       Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Narayana Ayyangar and
       Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1916, which is extracted as below:
             “5. … The expression "associated" in Section 6(13) of Act 19
 H           of 1951 is used having regard to the history of the legislation,
   M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &                        1133
  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION [N.V. RAMANA, J.]


      the scheme and objects of the Act, and the context in which the           A
      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.”
                                                     (emphasis supplied)        B
      15. As such, the public charity described in the rock inscription,
being associated with a religious festival, constitutes a religious charity
as defined under the Act.
       16. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of the Act,
the definition of “specific endowment” includes any money that has              C
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 has been endowed for the performance
of the same for it to constitute a specific endowment under the Act.
       17. While the word “endow”, and the connected word                       D
“endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act, from their
usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is clear that they relate
to the idea of giving, bequeathing or dedicating something, whether
property or otherwise, for some purpose. In the context of the Act, the
purpose is with respect to religion or charity. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar:        E
The Law Lexicon, Second Edn., p. 634, 635; Pratapsinghji N. Desai
v. Deputy Charity Commissioner Gujarat, 1987 Supp. SCC 714,
paragraph 8]. In the present case, the rock inscription clearly provides
for the utilization of money from the “Bakers Choultry” for the purposes
of performing the charitable activity of feeding Brahmins during the
specified religious festivals. As such, it is clear that the rock inscription   F
creates a “specific endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) of
the Act, which falls within the ambit of the Act.
       18. The same conclusion was reached by this Court in the
Narayana Ayyangar case (supra), wherein a Fund, instituted for the
purposes of feeding Brahmin pilgrims attending the Sri                          G
Venkatachalapathiswami shrine at Village Gunaseelam on the occasion
of the Rathotsavam festival, was stated to be a religious charity. In that
case, the Court held that:
      “7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of the
      Rathotsavam festival of Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami               H
1134             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A           shrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and the
             object of the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine on
             the 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
 B
             with the Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festival of a religious
             character, and therefore it is a religious charity within the
             meaning of Section 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of 1951…”
              19. Similarly, in the case of K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. v.
 C     Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and
       Ors., (2016) 15 SCC 597, this Court again dealt with a similar issue.
       In this case, the Court was required to determine the nature of certain
       charities mentioned in a Will, wherein it was stated that persons of the
       same caste as the testator would be fed on the occasion of Panguni
       festival every year. The Will also provided for the supply of food to
 D     persons during the day of Chitra Pournami. In this context, the Court
       held that the abovementioned two charities constitute religious charities,
       and that it was within the ambit of the High Court under the Act to
       pass orders regarding the framing of a scheme for administering the
       same.
 E
              20. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
       appellants, that the rock inscription did not constitute a specific
       endowment as the same was vague, secular in nature and did not result
       in any divestment of title, it must be stated that a bare perusal of the
       inscription would indicate that the first two contentions ought to be
 F     rejected. The rock inscription clearly stipulates the festivals during which
       the activity of feeding of Brahmins should be conducted. Not only are
       these festivals Hindu festivals, but the reference to “Brahmins” in the
       rock inscription itself clearly indicates that the endowment is not of a
       secular nature.
 G
              21. Finally, with respect to the learned counsel for the appellants’
       submission regarding the absence of divestment of property for the
       constitution of a specific endowment, the same would have to be
       rejected. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, in the case of M.R. Goda
       Rao Sahib v. The State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 653, while holding
 H     that divestment is necessary, decided on the facts of that case that a
   M. J. THULASIRAMAN v. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &                     1135
  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT ADMINISTRATION [N.V. RAMANA, J.]


settlement deed which provided for a charge on properties for the            A
payment of money amounted to a divestment:
      “4. There is no dispute that in order that there may be an
      endowment within the meaning of the Act, the settlor must
      divest himself of the property endowed. To create an
      endowment he must give it and if he has given it, he of course         B
      has not retained it; he has then divested himself of it. Did the
      settlors then divest themselves of anything? We think they did.
      By the instrument the settlors certainly divested themselves
      of the right to receive a certain part of the income derived
      from the properties in question. They deprived
                                                                             C
      themselves of the right to deal with the properties free of
      charge as absolute owners which they previously were...”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
       22. In the facts of the present appeal, the contents of the rock
inscription are sufficient for us to hold that there has been a valid        D
divestment and to reject the contention of the counsel for the appellants.
The rock inscription clearly indicates that the choultry is to be managed
by the community of bakers, who will use the balance funds for the
benefit of others. Further, the inscription also states that the managers
do not have any power of alienation with respect to the choultry. In
                                                                             E
the present appeal therefore, as in the case of M.R. Goda Rao Sahib
(supra), there has been a clear divestment of the right to receive a
certain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar on
the right of the manager to transfer the choultry.
       23. Another factor which merits our consideration is the fact that    F
the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants had been party to earlier
proceedings, before the Charity authorities and the Courts, wherein he
had filed pleadings to the effect that the “Bakers Choultry” constituted
a “specific endowment”. Although the predecessor-in-interest of the
applicant ultimately withdrew the application before the Deputy
Commissioner wherein he made the said pleading, it is quite                  G
disingenuous of him to have subsequently filed an application before
the Commissioner claiming the same property to be his personal
property.
       24. Therefore, taking into consideration the existing law and the
facts of the present case, we hold that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the       H
1136             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 11 S.C.R.


 A     rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined
       under the Act, and the same is not the private property of the appellants.
       The well reasoned judgment passed by the High Court, impugned before
       us, therefore warrants no interference.
              25. Appeal is consequently dismissed, with no costs. Pending
 B     applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Needless to say that the
       status quo granted vide order dated 14.05.2010 stands vacated.


       Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Appeal dismissed.


 C




 D




 E




 F




 G




 H