1  

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

Civil Appeal No 9492 of 2019  (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10520 of 2017)  

The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy                        

Represented by its Executive Officer,  

Joint Commissioner                                                    ...Appellant  

Versus  

P K Thoppulan Chettiar,                            

Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust,   

Rep. by its Managing Trustee and Ors                       ...Respondents     

 J U D G M E N T   

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

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 upheld the judgment dated  

31 August 2005 of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli and the decree  

dated 10 November 2004 of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge,

2  

Tiruchirapalli, permitting the first 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 ‗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 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 on these 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 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 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

3  

suit 1  for eviction of the encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge,  

Trichy. Owing to the difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing  

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 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 suit 2  in 2004 before the Second Additional  

Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for sale 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 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  

                                                           1  OS No 706 of 1984  

2  O S 60 of 2004

4  

Charitable Endowments Act 1959 3 . According to the appellant, under 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 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 had no applicability and the proposed sale could be sanctioned only  

by a civil court.   

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 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.   

                                                           3  ―Act of 1959‖

5  

7. Mr Mohan Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellant assailed the judgment of the High Court on the following grounds:  

 (i) The Deed of Settlement stated that Thoppulan Chettiar had purchased  

the property for the performance of the charitable work with reference  

to Sri Renganathaswamy 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 Gajendra Moksham  

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 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;  

(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 to sanction any sale of the  

property governed by the Act of 1959. The Section makes it clear that

6  

the sanction cannot 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 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 of 1959 are  

applicable to charitable endowments only upon the issuance of a  

notification by the government on grounds of mismanagement or  

maladministration by the trustees. There exists no notification extending  

the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1959 to the first  

respondent 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;  

(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;

7  

(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;  

(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 will have no applicability to the first  

respondent trust as it exempts both public and private charitable  

endowments;  

(vi) The restraint created in the Deed of Settlement is void under Section 10  

of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. 4  The trustees of the first  

respondent are not able to perform the 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) DW 5, the assistant superintendent of the temple, admitted 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.  

                                                           4  ―Transfer of Property Act‖

8  

The rival submissions fall for consideration.  

 9. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the Deed of  

Settlement dated 8 July 1901 creates 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 Deed of Settlement. The nature of the instrument  

must 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 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 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 for the benefit of  

the devotees during these festivals has been erecting water shed  

and distributing millet pooridge 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.Thiruvenkiden chetty,  

Sivalingam padayachi geethapuram Rengapuram M.C.Veeranan  

alias Mumman 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 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

9  

expenses. If it is low, they should meet 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,  

Geethapuram, Raghunathpuram  

South – Lakshmi Ammanakar farm  

West –  Namasivaye Asari farm  

East –   Amma Mandakepadi  

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)  

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, 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;  

(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;

10  

(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;   

(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 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 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 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  

charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in  

Explanation (1) to clause (17);‖  

11  

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 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 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 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 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 heirs of the settlor, or whether the heirs were the primary

12  

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 Rao

5 , a  

Constitution Bench of this Court dealt with the question of 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. … 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 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 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 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 whole...‖   

              (Emphasis supplied)  

                                                           5  AIR 1957 SC 797

13  

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 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 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 the charitable activities at the suit  

property. The purpose of the 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 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 Act of

14  

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;‖  

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‖ 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 out by a  

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v S P  

Sahi 6 . 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:  

―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 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  

                                                           6  1959 Supp (2) SCR 583  

15  

beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or  

who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained.  

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 would not make the  

trust a private trust...‖  

          (Emphasis supplied)  

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 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  

Admn 7 . 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 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 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  

                                                           7  (2019) 8 SCC 689  

16  

been interpreted in a three-judge Bench decision of this Court in Commr,  

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v Narayana  

Ayyangar 8 , where a fund was set up for carrying out charity in relation to feeding  

Brahmins attending the Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami shrine on the  

occasion of Rathotsavam festival. The question before this Court was whether  

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 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.  

...  

7. On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of the  

Rathotsavam festival of Sri Prasanna  

Venkatachalapathiswami 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 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.‖  

                (Emphasis supplied)  

                                                           8  AIR 1965 SC 1916. Relied upon in M J Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn  

(2019) 8 SCC 689.

17  

18. For a religious charity to be ―associated‖ with a Hindu festival, 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  

Commr of Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments 9 , 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. 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.  

 19. In a recent decision of this Court in M J Thulasiraman v Hindu Religious  

& Charitable Endowment Administrator 10

, 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 for a three judge bench of this Court held that the inscription  

created a specific endowment. The Court held:   

                                                           9  (2016) 15 SCC 597  

10  (2019) 8 SCC 689

18  

―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 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 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.   

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 has been endowed for the  

performance of the same for it to constitute a specific  

endowment under the Act.‖  

        (Emphasis supplied)   

The decision of the three judge bench in M J Thulasiraman 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 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

19  

public trust. 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 pooridge for three  

days‖   

The activities of the first respondent trust have a connection with Chithirai  

Gajendra Moksham and Padi Eighteen festivals and the charity 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 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). 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.   

   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.

20  

The charity of offering services 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 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.  

   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 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  

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.‖  

21  

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 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 11

of the Act of 1959, the Commissioner is the appropriate  

authority to approve the proposed sale of land by the first respondent.  

23. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised the  

argument that under Section 3 12

of the Act of 1959, the provisions of the Act are  

                                                           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 institution :   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:   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.   (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.   (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.   (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 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  

22  

applicable to charitable endowments only upon 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 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 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  

                                                                                                                                                                                    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 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 said provisions, and  thereupon, the provisions so extended shall apply to such charitable 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.   (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.   

23  

case, the specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the  

―religious charity‖ as understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore, 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 the prescribed procedure  

under the Act of 1959. There shall be no order as to costs.  

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                          [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]  

.…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                                     [Ajay Rastogi]   

 New Delhi;   February 19, 2020.