AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Swamikkannu, J.—This is an appeal preferred by the Defendant K. Arujunan, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 782 of
1974 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchy on 26-6-1979. The suit was filed by the respondent herein namely the idol of Sri
Kaliyugavaradaraja Perumal, Kallankurichi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,000 wish subsequent interest and costs from the appellant the case of
the respondent is that one Shanmughasnndaram Pillai, the maternal uncle of the defendant-appellant while he was in a sound and disposing state of
mind, executed a Will on 17-9-1972 in respect of his properties, appointing the Defendant as the executor of the Will. The testator died on 2-10-
1972 and the Will came into force. As per the terms of the said Will, out of the sum of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the testator in the Dravida Co-
operative Urban Bank Ltd., Karunthattankudi, Thanjavur Town, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the Executive Officer of the
Plaintiff-respondent temple and obtain a receipt from him inspite of repeated demands and registered notice, the defendant-appellant failed to pay
the aforesaid sum of Rs. 15,000. To the notice issued by the respondent on 19-9-1974, the appellant gave a reply with false allegations, the
plaintiff-respondent is not liable to bear the proportionate expenses said to have been incurred by the defendant-appellant in obtaining a succession
certificate for drawing the amount from the Bank. The respondent is also not bound to create a trust or to submit a scheme for the approval of the
defendant-appellant. The appellant has not complied with the demand in the suit notice. Hence the suit has been filed by the respondent herein
before the trial court for the abovesaid relief.
The case of the appellant as contended in the written statement can be stated as follows: The claim of the respondent is unsustainable. The
respondent being a third party, cannot seek to enforce the terms of the will. As per true and proper interpretation of the Will and as per the desire
expressed by Shanmughasundaram Pillai at the time of his death in the presence of his relatives, a trust was created by him by making specific
endowment of Rs. 15000 regarding which the appellant is to be a Kattalai trustee. As per the Will, the sum of Rs. 15000 has to be endowed in the
form of a trust and out of the income therefrom, poojas have to be performed to the Deity for the salvation of the testator. So it is open to the
respondent to insist upon the creation of a trust and performance of poojas by resorting to the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Act. The respondents through its Trustee or Executive Officer can prepare a Scheme for the approval of the appellant and only then,
the appellant will be able to invest the available sum in the form of a trust for a specific endowment. Further for getting the amount from the bank,
the appellant had to spend about Rs. 3,000 to get succession certificate and the respondent has to bear the proportionate expenses namely Rs.
2050. The averments in the reply notice of the appellant are true. Hence the suit may be dismissed with costs.
On the abovesaid pleadings, the following issues were originally framed for trial by the trial Court.
Whether the defendant''s maternal uncle expressed an desire after the registered will dated 17-9-1972 and before his death on 2-10-1972 as
stated by the defendant?
Even if so, is it binding on the plaintiff idol?
Is the defendant trustee for Rs. 15,000 bequeathed to the plaintiff-idol ?
Is the suit not maintainable ?
Has this Court got territorial jurisdiction in respect of the suit claim?
Is the plaintiff entitled to claim Rs. 15,000 from the defendant ?
To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
Subsequently, by consent, the issues already framed on 2-4-1975 had been struck off and the following issues had been framed for trial:�
Whether the sum of Rs. 15,000 bequeathed in the Will of Shanmughasundaram Pillai is intended to create a specific endowment.
Whether Shanmughasundaram Pillai had expressed any desire after the will and before his death that Kattalai has to be created with the help of
Rs. 15,000 mentioned in the Will?
Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.
Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 2050 towards expenses for obtaining succession certificate?
To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent temple P.W.1 Chokkalingam and P.W.2, M. Nataraja Pillai were examined. Ex. A.1-copy of notice issued
by the plaintiff to the defendant dated 18-8-1974; Ex.A2 postal acknowledgement dated 12-8-1974 signed by the defendant; Ex.A3 copy of the
letter addressed to the Dy. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Srirangam. Tiruchirappalli, dated 5-9-1974; Ex.A4, dated 13th September, 1974, letter
addressed to the Trustee Arulmigu Kaliyuga Varadarajaperumal Koil by the Dy. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Tiruchirapalli Ex. 5 dated, 19 9-
1974 copy of notice issued by the plaintiff''s advocate to the defendant Ex.A6 dated 27-9-1974 reply notice by defendant''s advocate to the
plaintiff''s advocate and Ex.A7 dated 17th September 1972, registration copy of will executed by Shanmughasundaram Pillai were filed on behalf
of the plaintiff/respondent herein.
On behalf of the appellant, the appellant, himself had gone into the box D.W.1 and deposed. The appellant had also examined M. Natarajapillai,
and Pannerselvam, as D.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. Ex.B1, original will dated 17-9-1972 executed by Shanmughasundaram Pillai was marked
before the trial court by the appellant herein.
On a consideration of the above evidence available on record, under issue No. 1, the trial court held that from a plain reading of the recitals of
Ex.B1 shows that the appellant being the executor has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the plaintiff respondent temple one obtain a receipt therefor
from the Executive Officer, under issue No. 2, the case of the defendant appellant that Shanmugasuudaram Pillai had orally expressed his desire to
create a Kattallai with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000 motioned in Ex.B1 is invested for the purpose of defeating the right of the plaintiff-
respondent to claim the amount, under issue No. 3, the defendant-appellant is liable to make payment to the Executive Officer of the plaintiff-
respondent temple and therefore this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit, from which this appeal has been preferred; under issue
No. 4, the respondent-plaintiff is not liable to pay the proportionate cost to the appellant-defendant for obtaining the succession certificate and
under issue No. 5, the suit was decreed as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial court the defendant has come
forward with this appeal.
Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant inter alia contends that the lower Court had not properly taken into
consideration the contents of the documents filed as well as the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant in proper perspective and in the
light of the issues that were framed by it and as such the judgment and decree of the trial court have to be set aside. It is strenuously contended that
the Court below has no jurisdiction to try the suit since cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court because the appellant is
residing at Thanjavur and the Will was executed al Thanjavur and it was in that place that the said will was also registered. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel for the appellant, the cause of action arose only within the jurisdiction of Thanjavur Court. It is further contended that even
assuming that the recital in the will does not constitute an endowment, the wishes expressed by the deceased as spoken to by D.Ws. 1 to 3 would
constitute a specific endowment. It is also contended by Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, the learned Counsel for the appellant that the lower court has
failed to see that the costs for obtaining succession certificate, has to be borne by the respondent and as such the learned Judge ought to have
decided issue No. 4 in favour of the appellant.
Mr. M.C. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence available on record
both oral and documentary and has come to the correct conclusion with respect to all the issues framed by it.
The points for consideration are:�
Whether the sum of Rs. 15,000/- bequeathed under Ex.B1 will of Shanmughasundaram Pillai is intended to create a specific endowment.
Whether Shanmughasundaram Pillai has expressed any desire after the Will and before his death that a Kattalai has to be created with the help
of Rs. 15,000/- mentioned in the will.
Whether the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
Whether, the Plaintiff respondent is liable to pay Rs. 2,050/- towards expenses for obtaining succession certificate.
Points 1 to 4:� The respondent has filed the suit before the trial Court for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- from the appellant. The case of the
respondent is that on 17-9-1972, the appellant''s maternal uncle Shanmughasundaram Pillai of Karunthattankudi, Thanjavur Town, executed
Ex.B1 Will bequeathing the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent-temple and appointed the appellant as the Executor. The respondent is the
idol of Sri Kaliyugavadaraja Perumal, situated at Kallankurichi, Ariyalur Taluk. The respondent claims the suit amount from the appellant only in
pursuance of the directions given by the testator in Ex.B1 will.
The execution of the Will Ex.B1 by Shanmughasundaram on 17-9-1972 appointing the appellant as the executor, is admitted by the appellant
himself. But with reference to the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- said to have been given to the respondent temple, the contention of the appellant is that
a specific endowment has been created in respect of the said sum and that therefore the respondent cannot get the same without submitting a
proposal for the scheme.
S.6, Cl. 19 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Madras. Act No. 22 of 1959) defines ''specific
endowment'' as:
any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, or for the performance of any other
religious charity, but does not include an mam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17):
Explanation (1):�Two or more endowments of the nature specified in this clause, the administration of which is vested in a common trustee, or
which are managed under a common scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under this Act shall be constituted as a single specific
endowment for the purposes of this Act:
Explanation (2):�Where a specific endowment attached to a math or temple is situated partly within the State and partly outside the State control
shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of this Act over the part of the specific endowment situated within the State.
A careful reading of the above provision, namely S.6, Cl. 19 of Madras Act 22 of 1959, shows that specific endowment means a property or
money given in endowment for the purpose of performing a specific service or religious charity in a temple or math.
Cl. 16 of S.6 of the said Act provides that the ""person having interest"" means�
(a) In the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs;
(b) .. .. .. .. ..
(c) in the case of a specific endowment of a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of the service or
charity, or who is entitled to partake or is in the habit of partaking in the benefit of the charity.
S.6, Cl. 17 provides that ""Religious endowment"" or ""endowment"" is 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;
and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof; but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka,
service-holder or other employee of a religious institution.
In the instant case before us, the fact whether Shanmughasundaram Pillai had really intended to create a specific endowment with the help of
the sum of Rs. 15,000/- mentioned in the Will can be decided only on the true interpretation of the terms of the Will. In this regard, it is necessary
to remember the Cypres doctrine which is to the following effect
Where the original object cannot be carried out in the manner and form intended by the donor or where the literal execution of the trust is or
afterwards becomes inexpedient or impracticable, the Court will execute the trust cypress, that is apply the funds to other objects of a similar
character. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. The State of Bombay and Others, the Supreme Court has explained this doctrine as follows: ""Where
the particular purpose for which a charitable trust is created fails or by reason of circumstances the trust cannot be carried into effect in whole or in
part, or where there is a surplus left after exhausting the purposes specified by the settlor, the court would not, when there is a general charitable
intention expressed by the settlor, allow the trust to fail, but would execute it cypres, that is to say, in someway as nearly as possible, to that which
the author of the trust intended. In such cases, it cannot be disputed that the Court can frame scheme and give suitable directions regarding the
objects upon which the trust money can spent. It is well established, however that where the donor''s intention can be green effect to the Court his
no authority to sanction any deviation from the intentions expressed by the settlor, on the grounds of expediency and the Court cannot exercise the
power of applying the trust property or its income to other purpose simply because it considers them to be more expedient or more beneficial than
what the settlor had directed... ......To divert the trust property or funds for purposes which the Charity Commissioner or the Court considers
expedient or proper, although the original objects of the founder can still be carried out, is an unwarranted encroachment on the free Join of
religious institutions in regard to the management of their religious affairs.
Professor S. Venkataraman, who edited the seventh edition of N.R. Raghavachariar''s Hindu Law (Principles and Precedents) VII Edn., P
649 has observed regarding Cypres doctrine as follows:�
Where subscriptions are paid to a committee for the purpose, of fulfilling a specific and well-defined charitable purpose and that only, and there is
no general charitable intent shown. ""In respect thereof, a complete trust is created to apply the funds in carrying out the object mentioned. If the
object has become impracticable the subscribers have a clear right to the return of the subscription pro rata subject only to the rights of the trustees
in respect of their proper costs, charges and expenses. If on the other hand, impracticability is not shown they still have to carry out the trust. If the
charitable scheme has not become impracticable, the trustees cannot abandon the scheme, because that is not a matter in their power at all; nor
can they, without recourse to the Court make a cypres application of the funds on the ground that there was a general charitable intent, even if that
view is a correct one. In this connection it must be remembered that impracticability of carrying out a charitable purpose means impracticable from
a reasonable point of view and includes not only the present lack of subscriptions and the virtual impossibility of getting sufficient subscriptions in
future but also any other reason which may have contributed to make the scheme impracticable.
In Karuppannan Ambalam v. Tirumalai Ambalam 75 L.W. 413= ILR (1962) Mad. 974 it was held that where property in part was settled by a
deed of settlement for the construction and maintenance of the samadhi of the settlor and offering neivedhyam at the Samadhi, and in part for the
education of poor students, the properties or the fund or the income to be utilised for the samadhi could not, on the failure of the charity in favour
of the samadhi, on account of its invalidity be taken over to the education charity on the principle of cypres or the residuary bequest benefiting by
the failure of prior bequest The doctrine of cypres would apply in India only to wills and not to deeds or settlements or transfers inter vivos.
In the instant case Ex.B1 is the original Will executed by Shanmughasundaram Pillai on 17-9-1972. The specific recitals in Ex.B1 runs as
follows:�
A careful reading of the contents of the portions extracted above from Ex.B1 shows that the appellant, being the executor of the Will, has to
hand over the sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Executive Officer of the respondent temple and obtain a receipt therefor from him.
We have to deal now with the aspect of ""Kattalai"" said to have come into existence, Tamil Lexicon, Vol. 11, published by the University of
Madras, 1982 Edition at page 647 defines "" "" (KATTALAI) as
Endowment for some special services in a temple distinct from one for the general upkeep and maintenance of the institution.
Provision for the free feeding of a certain number of pilgrims in a temple or mutt.
In Smt. Mahadevi v. Kaliji 1969 A.L.J. 86 , it was held that for the creation of a valid endowment, it is not necessary to vest the property in
trustee as is required under English Law. Prof. Dr. S. Venkataraman, in his edition of N.R. Raghavachariar''s Hindu Law, Seventh Edition, Volume
I, at page 637 observes as follows:�
But a trust in the English sense i.e., a disposition of property for the benefit of a person, in which the legal ownership is vested in the trustee has
now become an integral part of Hindu system, and a Hindu can therefore create a trust for the benefit of a deity as distinguished from an
endowment which means a disposition for the benefit of the deity by which the properly is given to and vested in the deity. Whether the donor
intended to adopt the me or the other method of effectuating his beneficiation for the deity, namely, trust or endowment, is a matter of inference to
be drawn on the facts and circumstance of each particular case vide Sridhar v. Manindra T.L.R. 1940 2 Cal. 285.
It is a well settled principle of Jaw that in the absence of a written grant or evidence of exclusive appropriation of the profits for the purposes of
a temple the mere fact that the income of the village had been used for the temple for a long time is insufficient to make out a dedication of the
village to the temple. It was so held in Govinda Das v. Raja Venkata 27 M.L.J. 195. Though the mere fact of the proceeds of the land being used
for the support of an idol may not be proof of dedication, it is still a fact that may well be taken into consideration, when the intention of the founder
has to be gathered from an ancient document expressed in ambiguous language Contempornea Exposition Est Optima. It was so held in Abiram v.
Syama Charan 36 Cal. 1003 = 19 M.L.J. 530. In dealing with the question whether an endowment is real or nominal only, the manner in which the
dedicated property is held and enjoyed is the most important point for consideration. It was so held in Ram Chandra v. Ranjit Singh 27 Cal. 242.
In Gangi Reddi v. Tammi Reddi 50 M.421= 26 L.W. 139= 54 I.A. 136= 52 M.L.J. 524, it was held that if the profits of the property were
not all applied for the charity; but they were only treated as the purse from which the expenses of the charity were met, it could not be said that
there was a dedication of the property. The mere execution of a deed, although it may purport on the face of it be dedicated property to an idol, is
not enough to constitute a valid endowment. It is necessary that the executant should be shown to have divested himself of the property dedicated.
Where the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties show that, as a matter of fact, the profits of the property have been utilised in the
performance of the deb sheba in accordance with the rules laid down in the deed of dedication the mere fact that the members of the settlor''s
family are nominated sbebaits and that they are to be remunerated out of the income of the property is no ground for holding that the dedication is
not real provided that the remuneration is reasonable having regard to the income of the property. It was so held in Janardhan v. Kshitish Chandra
1932 Cal. 419.
The temples or the devasthanams have the richest and the largest endowments in India which are being daily added to by the votaries that flock
to them in thousands all the year round. The presiding element is the deity or idol, a juridical person possessing the juristic capacity of receiving gifts
and holding property. But it is only an ideal sense that property can be said to belong to an idol, and the possession and management of it must, in
the nature of things, be entrusted to some person known as shebait or manager. It was so held in Jagadindra v. Hamanta 32 Cal. 129.
In the instant case before us, Ex.B1, is the original will executed by Shanmughasudaram Pillai on 17-9-1972. The main recitals in Ex.B1, run as
follows: . The above portion of Ex.B1 clearly shows that the testator with the object of deriving benefits in the ''Para Logha'' that is, in the heaven is
paying this amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the Executive Officer of Sri Kaliyugavaradarajaperumal Temple. Kallankurichi Village, Ariyalur Taluk.
Tiruchirappalli District, for performing pooja etc., to the deity. A careful reading of the above passage in Ex.B1 shows that the appellant being the
executor of the Will has to hand over a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the Executive Officer of the respondent temple and obtain a receipt therefor from
him. The clause in the Will viz., for the purpose of performing pooja, etc., in the respondent-temple, to attain salvation for the soul of the testator is
only a pious wish. If really the testator had intended to create a Kattalai or specific endowment, as contended by the appellant, he would have
certainly mentioned the same in the Will itself. Even by applying the principle of similar cypres doctrine, we are unable to uphold the contention
raised on behalf of the appellant that a specific endowment has been created by virtue of the above clause in the Will by the testator. It appears
from the evidence of D.W. 1 that Shanmugasundaram Pillai has served as the trustee of some other temple, and so he knew fully well what is
Kattalai If it was the real intention of Shanmughasundaram Pillai to create a Kattalai in his name with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000 mentioned
in the Will he would have specifically mentioned the said purpose as a fact in Ex.B1 Will and appointed the appellant as the trustee of the Kattalai.
But Ex. B1 does not speak about the creation of a Kattalai in the name of Shanmughasundaram Pillai with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000. The
fact that Ex.B.1 does not speak about the creation of any Kattalai in the name of the testator with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000 will clearly
prove that he never intended to create a Kattalai in his name for performing the charity in his name in the respondent temple. From a plain reading
of the recitals on Ex.B1, this Court is certainly of the opinion that the appellant being the executor has to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the
respondent-temple and obtain a receipt therefor from the Executive Officer. Hence this Court finds this point against the appellant.
Another contention raised by the appellant is that after the execution of the Will Ex.B1 and before his death. Shanmughasundaram Pillai had
expressed his desire, that a Kattalai should be created in his name to perform the pooja and charities in the respondent temple on his anniversary
day D.Ws.1 to 3 have given evidence regarding this aspect. It appears from the, evidence of D.W.1 that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had already
expressed his desire to create a Kattalai to perform the charities on the anniversary day in the respondent temple. As per the evidence of D.W.1,
Shanmughasundaram Pillai had expressed his desire only prior to his death and appointed D.W.1 as the trustee of the Kattalai. The evidence of
D.W.2 will reveal that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had expressed his desire to create a Kattalai with the sum of Rs. 15,000 mentioned in the Will
just prior to his death admittedly. Shanmughasundaram Pillai died on 2-10-1972 while the Will Ex.B1 was executed on 17-9-1972. The evidence
of D.W.2 clearly discloses that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had expressed his desire to create a Kattalai with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000
only prior to the execution of Ex.B1. But the case of the appellant is that the testator expressed his desire to create a Kattalai only after the
execution of Ex.B1. So the evidence of D.W.2 that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had expressed his desire orally to create a Kattalai in his name to
perform the charities in the respondent-temple even before Ex.B1 cannot be accepted. According to D.W.2 Shanmughasundaram Pillai expressed
his desire to create a Kattalai just ten days before his death. But it is seen from the evidence of D.W.2 that the condition of Shanmughasundaram
Pillai became worse about 10 days before his death; and he was not in a position to talk. If credence has to be given to the evidence unfurled
through D.W.2. Shanmughasundaram Pillai would not have expressed his desire for creating of a Kattalai in his name just 10 days prior to his
death, as deposed to by D.W.1 to D.W.3. We find that D.Ws.1 to 3 have given prevaricating and totally different versions regarding the desire
said to have been made orally by Shanmughasundaram to create a Kattalai in his name with the help of the sum of Rs. 15,000 mentioned in the
Will. So, the case of the appellant that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had orally expressed his desire to create a Kattalai with the help of the sum of
Rs. 15,000 mentioned in Ex.B1 is clearly an invention made and an after thought occurred at the instance of the appellant with the motive of
defeating the right of the respondent-temple to claim the amount. Hence this Court finds this point also against the appellant.
It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Regarding this point, the
contention of the appellant is two-fold. Firstly, he would contend that a specific endowment has been created under Ex.B1 Will and, so, the
respondent has to submit a proposal for the framing of a scheme, and without doing so, the respondent cannot claim the amount from the appellant,
and as such the suit is barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act We have already found that no
specific endowment has been created under Ex.B1 Will, and so the suit is not barred under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Act.
The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant, regarding the jurisdiction point is that the Will was executed and registered at
Karunthattankudi in Thanjavur District, and so the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. It is true that the Will as execute and
registered at Karunthattankudi, which is part of Thanjavur Town over which the trial court his no jurisdiction. But as per the terms of the Will, the
appellant has been directed to pay the sum of Rs. 15,000 to the executive officer of the respondent temple. Thus it is clear from Ex.B1 that the
appellant should go to the respondent-temple and pay the amount to its Executive Officer. The plaintiff-respondent-temple is situate in
Kallankurichi Village, Ariyalur Taluk, Trichy District, which is admittedly within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The amount of Rs. 15,000 is
payable by the appellant only to the executive officer of the respondent-temple situate within the jurisdiction of the trial court. So, the appellant is
expected to make payment only in the office of the executive officer of the respondent temple which is admittedly situate within the jurisdiction of
the trial court. The money has to reach only the office of the respondent-temple which is managed by has executive officer of the said temple. Since
the appellant is liable to make payment to the executive officer of the respondent-temple, the trial court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the
suit. This court answers this point in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent-temple.
It is also the case of the appellant that he had spent a sum of Rs. 3,000 for obtaining succession certificate, and so the respondent has to remit
the proportionate costs which will come to roughly Rs. 2,050. It appears from Ex.B1 will that Shanmughasundaram Pillai had deposited a sum of
Rs. 25,000 in Dravida Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, in fixed deposit account, and only out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 15,000 was directed
to be paid by the appellant to the Executive Officer of the respondent-temple. According to the appellant, he spent about Rs. 3,000 for obtaining
the succession certificate, and then only he withdrew the amount from the Bank. Since the amount was deposited in a Bank, the appellant would
have withdrawn the same only after obtaining the succession certificate. Further the appellant was also given a sum of Rs. 5,000 out of Rs. 25,000
deposited by the testator in the Bank and, besides, the appellant also got immovable properties. So, under law, the appellant cannot claim the
proportionate costs from the respondent-temple for obtaining succession certificate. Further there is also no provision in the Will regarding the
expenses. Moreover, the appellant has not also produced the succession certificate obtained by him to prove the actual amount spent by him for
getting the same. So, the respondent-temple is not liable to pay the proportionate costs to the appellant for obtaining the succession certificate
Hence this point is also found in favour of the respondent-temple. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed with costs.