S. Ramamoorthy vs The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, Trichy, has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his said suit filed u/s 70 of

the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. The suit is for setting aside the order of the first defendant/first respondent

Commissioner under the said Act directing framing of a scheme for the suit trust which was constituted under Ex. A. 8 dated 28-9-1914. Originally

Defendants 2 to 6, who who are respondents 2 to 6 in this appeal filed O.A. No. 3 of 1966 before the Deputy Commissioner under the abovesaid

Act praying for framing of a scheme for the said Trust u/s 64(1) of the said Act. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the said application inter

alia holding that he has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the said Trust u/s 64(1) of the said Act. However, the said defendants 2 to 6

preferred an appeal A.P. No. 49 of 1968 to the first defendant/Commissioner and since he has allowed the appeal and has directed framing of the

scheme, the above said statutory suit was filed by the plaintiff and the said suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal

The argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellant is as follows:

Under the abovesaid Section 64(1) of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner could frame a scheme only with reference to an ""Institution"" spoken to

therein. The explanation to Section 64(1) gives a special definition of the term ""Institution"" as follows:

For the purposes of this section, ""Institution"" means a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple

The term ""temple"" is defined u/s 6(20) of the Act. According to the said counsel, the suit Trust will not fall under the said definition of the term

Temple"". Further term ''Specific endowment"" has been defined u/s 6(19) of the Act. It runs as follows:

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 Explanation (1) to Clause (IT).

Thus, it is found that there are two kinds of specific endowments. One is, any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific

service or charity in a math or temple and the other is any property or money endowed for the performance of any other religious charity.

According to the counsel the suit trust would not come under the first kind of specific endowment since no property has been endowed for the

performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple as per Ex. A. 8 Trust deed. But the counsel submits that even if the suit trust

would come under the Act consequent to the property having been endowed for religious charity, yet it will not become ""a specific endowment

attached to a temple"", spoken to in the above said explanation to Section 64(1) of the Act.

Learned counsel also points out the relevant portions in Ex. A.8/Trust deed to show the nature of the trust. The relevant recitals in Ex. A. 8 are

as follows:

On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent makes the following submissions: The abovesaid recitals in Ex. A. 8 would show that

the definition of the term ""Institution"" found in the abovesaid explanation is satisfied. In other words, he says that it could be inferred from Ex. A. 8

that there is a ""Temple"" as defined u/s 6(20) of the Act. According to him, in view of the abovesaid recital that poojas have to be performed on the

Dhuvadasi day for Sri Venkatararnanan and Nachiar in the house the definition of the term ""Temple"" u/s 6(20) is satisfied.

I am unable to agree with this submission of learned counsel for first respondent. Simply because in Ex. A. 8 it is mentioned that the abovesaid

Poojas have to be performed for the abovesaid idols, it cannot be necessarily said that there is a ""Temple"" within the meaning of the said term u/s

6(20) of the Act. Section 6(20) runs as follows:

temple"" means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used

as of right by, the Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship"".

So as per this definition two requirements have to be satisfied if a place could be called a ""temple"" (1) It must be a place of public religious worship

and (2) it is dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu Community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship, or it is used as of

right by, the Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place of pubic religious worship.

But in the present case, there is absolutely no plea even, regarding first of the above said two ingredients namely that the place in question in the

present case is a place of public religious worship. No doubt learned counsel for the first respondent drew my attention in this regard to paragraph

4 of the written statement of the first respondent. Paragraph 4 runs as follows:

4, The intention of the creator of the trust is only to perform religious charities. The nature and mode of trust clearly indicate that the trust is only a

religious trust. It is also specifically stated in the deed that poojas should be performed regularly and that too, in the suit property i.e. a house in

Chinnak-kadai Street, Tiruchy"".

So even the said para 4 says that the intention of the founder of the trust is only to perform religious charities. Even with reference to Poojas, it says

that it should be done in the house mentioned therein. Nowhere in the written statement it is stated that the said house is used as a place of public

religious worship, nor any where in the written statement it is stated that the place is dedicated to, or, for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the

Hindu Community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship. Thus, there is not only no plea to satisfy S. 6(20), but there is also

no proof to that effect. Therefore, based on the recitals in Ex. A. 8, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that there is a ''temple'' in the

present case. If that is so, the explanation to Section 64(1) is not satisfied. Even assuming that the present case would fall under the definition of the

term ""specific endowment"", it could certainly be concluded that the place (sic) is not specific endowment attached to a ""temple"".

Therefore, I agree with the abovesaid argument of the learned counsel for appellant and hold that the Authorities under the above said Act have

no jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the suit trust u/s 64(1) of the abovesaid Act. Accordingly, the dis-misssal of the suit by the court below is

certainly erroneous, and the order of the Commissioner in A.P. No. 49 of 1968 dated 26-12-1970 (Ex. B.2) is hereby set aside. In the result the

dismissal of the suit is set aside and the suit is decreed as prayed for and the appeal is allowed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.