Page 1

1

                                                                           REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2401 OF 2003

K.S. Soundararajan and Ors. .. Appellants  

versus

Commissioner of H.R. & C.E.  and Ors. ..       Respondents

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree  

dated 13.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Judicature at  

Madras in Letters Patent Appeal No.183 of 1994, wherein the  

Division Bench held that the first object of the three charities  

mentioned in the Will, is of private Trust and the rest are of  

public Trust and therefore, the respondent no.1 and 2 therein,  

have  power  under  Section  64  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Hindu

Page 2

2

Religious  and Charitable  Endowment  Act,  1959,  to  frame a  

scheme, in so far as, the public Trust is concerned.

2. Briefly  the  facts  are  summarized  as  follows  :  One  

Sundararaja Naidu had no male issues, except two daughters  

and his brother’s son is Kondasamy Naidu and he executed a  

registered  Will  dated  7.12.1949  bequeathing  properties  

mentioned in Item nos.1, 2 and 3 absolutely in favour of them  

and directed Kondasamy Naidu to  be in possession of  Item  

no.4 and perform the charities mentioned in the Will from out  

of  the  income  of  the  said  properties  and  prohibited  the  

alienation of the said item of land.  Later Kondasamy Naidu  

alienated a portion of land in Item no.4 in the Will and claimed  

to have purchased some other properties from out of the sale  

proceeds.  

Page 3

3

3.  Five persons claiming to belong to the community of the  

testator filed application before the Deputy Commissioner for  

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Section 64  

of  H.R.  &  C.E.  Act  for  setting  a  scheme  in  respect  of  the  

charities  mentioned in the  Will  of  Sundararaja Naidu.   The  

Deputy Commissioner held that the Trust is a private Trust  

and no scheme could be framed.  On appeal his order was set  

aside by the Commissioner, who held that the Trust is a public  

Trust  and  charities  required  to  be  performed  are  religious  

charities and the beneficiaries are the members of the public  

and  a  scheme  could  be  framed  and  in  fact  required  to  be  

framed.   Meanwhile  Kondasamy  Naidu  died  and  his  legal  

representatives instituted a statutory suit for setting aside the  

order of the Commissioner referred to supra.  The trial court  

dismissed  the  suit  and  judgment  was  affirmed  by  a  single  

Judge  of  the  High  Court  and  in  the  Letters  Patent  Appeal  

preferred,  the  Division  Bench  modified  the  order  of  the  

Commissioner to the extent that the scheme to be framed shall  

be confined to the specific endowments attached to the temple,  

namely, performance of Pooja and Neivedyam to Subramania

Page 4

4

Swami on the occasion of Panguni Uthiram and by feeding by  

way  of  Pundhi  Bojanam on  the  occasion  of  God Kallalagar  

passing through Vaigai river on the Chitra Pournami day to  

Vandiyur.  Challenging the same the plaintiffs have preferred  

the present Civil Appeal.   

4. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing  

for  the  appellants  contended  that  the  pious  acts  to  be  

performed under the Will, have no relationship whatsoever to  

the Deities  mentioned and there is  no charitable  activity  of  

public  character and the pious acts do not constitute public  

Trust and the High Court misconstrued Section 64(1) of the  

Act  by  misreading  the  Will  and  by  holding  that  the  term  

‘attached’ occurring in the explanation under Section 64(1) has  

to  be  understood  broadly.  Per  contra  the  learned  counsel  

appearing for the respondents  contended that the High Court  

has rightly held that the pious acts mentioned  in the Will are  

religious charities and the framing of scheme in respect of it, is

Page 5

5

within the ambit of power conferred under Section 64 of the  

Act.

5.  Provision  is  made in the  Will  for  the  performance of  

following charities:   

“1) During  Panguni  festival  at  Thirupparankundram every year  according to  income supplying of  food to the people of  our  own  caste  and  performing  poojas  and  neivadhiyam to Swami without fail.

2)  Also every year on Chitra Pournami when  Kallalagar entering into Vaigai River and going  to Vandiur, supplying of food called Arasa.”

6. The  Presiding  Deity  of  the  temple  at  

Thirupparankundram  is  Subramaniaswami  and  the  

performance of Neivedyam and Pooja to the said Swami during  

festival  mentioned as  first  charity  is  clearly  a  service  to  be  

rendered to the Deity in the Temple.  Supply of food on  Chitra  

Pournami day every year has to be done when God Kallalagar

Page 6

6

is  taken  in  procession  through  the  Vaigai  river  on  way  to  

Vandiur,  is the second charity mentioned in the Will.   It  is  

necessary  to  refer  at  this  stage  to  some  of  the  relevant  

provisions of the Act.  “Religious institution” has been defined  

in  Section  6(18)  as  meaning  a  math,  temple  or  specific  

endowment. “Specific endowment” in Section 6(19) reads thus:  

“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)”.  “Religious charity” is defined in Section 6(16) as  

meaning 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.    “Religious  endowment”  or  

“endowment”  has been defined in Section 6(17)  to mean 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

Page 7

7

gifts or property made as personal gifts to the Archaka, Service  

holder  or other employee of a religious institution.   

7.  The Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision in  

Mahant Ram  Saroop Dasji Vs.  S.P.  Sahi  and Ors  .   [1959  

Supp.(2)  SCR 583]  has succinctly  stated the distinction in  

Hindu Law between religious endowments  which are  public  

and those which are private, as under:

“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 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.”

Page 8

8

8.  This Court in the decision in Commissioner, Madras  

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments  Vs. Narayana  

Ayyangar and Ors. [1965 (3) SCR 168], while considering the  

charity  to  feed  Brahmins  on  the  occasion  of  Rathotsavam  

festival of Sri  Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami  Temple in  

Gunaseelam, when feeding is not done in the Temple premises  

but  at  a  separate  place,  held that  it  is  a public  charity  by  

observing thus :

“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.”

Page 9

9

The  object  of  the  second  charity  herein  is  to  feed  on  the  

occasion of  God Kallalagar being taken out in  procession  on  

Chitra Pournami day by entering into Vaigai river and going to  

Vandiyur, and therefore, it is a religious charity and such a  

service  should  be  regarded  as  one  meant  for  the  Deity.  

Specific  endowment  is  a  religious  institution  as  per  the  

definition stated supra.  For the purpose of Section 64 of the  

Act,  as  per  explanation  provided,  the  institution  means  a  

temple or  a specific  endowment attached to a temple.   The  

expression ‘attached’ in the explanation to Section 64(1) has to  

be construed having regard to the history of the legislation and  

the scheme and objects of the Act and as rightly held by the  

High Court  it  is  required  to  be  understood  broadly  in  that  

sense   of  providing  for  the  performance  of  any  service  or  

charity in or connected with temple.

9.  The charities of offering Neivedyam to Swami during  

Punguni Uthiaram festival and the feeding by way of Pundhi  

Bojanam on the occasion of God Kallalagar passing through

Page 10

10

Vaigai river to Vandiyur on Chitra Pournami day are religious  

charities and constitute a service to the Deity in the temple  

and in our view, the High Court    is right in   concluding that  

the framing of a  scheme in respect of these matters is within  

the ambit of powers vested under Section 64 of the Act.

10. There  are  no  merits  in  the  appeal  and the  same is  

dismissed.  No costs.

………………….J.  (M.Y. Eqbal)

    .…………………J.   (C. Nagappan)

New  Delhi; November  24, 2015.