R.M.AR.AR.RM.AR. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR Vs. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above four appeals are against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in which the relief sought was to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras dated 7th February 1969. A.S. No. 256 of 1972 is against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 46 of 1969, which was filed to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, in Appeal case No. 38 of 1963, and A.S. 686 of 1972 is against the judgment in O.S. No. 47 of 1969, which was filed to set aside the order in Appeal case No. 44 of 1963 on the file of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras. A.S. 341 of 1972 and 378 of 1974 are against the judgment of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in O.S. No. 48 of 1969, which was filed to set aside the order in A.C. No. 58 of 1963. We shall now take up A.S. 256 and 686 of 1972. The common facts which arise for consideration may be stated thus Late RM. AR. AR. RM. Arunachala Chettiar, a native of Devakottai, was religious and charitable minded. According to the plaintiff, he created endowments purely of a private character for the spiritual benefit of himself, his descendants, To the members of his family and his close relatives and friends. He died on 23rd February, 1938, leaving behind him surviving his two widows and a widowed daughter -in -law, the wife of a predeceased son, who was also childless. Each of the two widows and the widowed daughter -in -law adopted a son in accordance with the custom of the Nattukottai Chettiar community. The plaintiff and the second defendant are the adopted sons of late Arunachalam Chettiar and the third defendant is his adopted grandson. Consequent upon certain internal disputes in the family a suit for administration and partition of the estate of late Arunachalam Chettiar was filed, and it was numbered as O.S. No. 93 of 1938 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai. In that suit properties privately endowed by late Chettiar were also the subject -matter. Two joint receivers were appointed in that suit which ended in a compromise. In the said compromise the private character of the endowment was recognised and a scheme was framed thereto under which the trust should be maintained in rotation by the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 each for one year. Subsequently, in another family litigation, O.S. 35 of 1966 Sub Court, Devakottai, the plaintiff has been recognised as the trustee to be in charge of the endowed properties. It is in that capacity and after due sanction the plaintiff has instituted the three suits referred to above in the circumstances to be stated hereafter.

(2.) The plaintiff has traced the history of the endowments thus - -Late Arunachalam Chettiar was doing worship in many saivite temples. He did many charities some of which were religious in character and some secular. He used to set apart moneys in the course of his business for the aforesaid purposes. Considerable amounts so set apart got accumulated. Late Arunachalam Chettiar, therefore, had to execute trust -deeds and at one particular point of time was called upon to confirm such trust before the Income tax authorities. Ex. A.4 is one such affidavit filed by him before the taxing authorities affirming the nature of the trust created by him. The trusts were being performed by turn trustees in accordance with the intentions of the author of the trust. There was no interference by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department till the death of the founder of the trust. At one time there was an attempt by the Department to interfere and levy fees under Act 19 of 1951, as if the endowments were of a public nature. The aggrieved persons filed successfully writ petitions before the High Court and prevented such a levy. But in the above proceedings the question whether the endowments created by late Arunachalam Chettiar was of a public nature or whether it is a religious endowment coming within the provisions of Act 19 of 1951 was left open to be decided under the provisions of the Act itself. As the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments, Thanjavur, initiated punitive proceedings against the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 under S.45 of Act 19 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 applied under S. 57 of the Act for a due determination of the matter in issue whether the endowments created by late Arunachalam Chettiar were of a public or a private character. Accordingly, five applications were filed. The Deputy Commissioner after due enquiry was of the view that some endowments covered by the trust deed which we shall presently refer, as also the affidavit Ex. A.4 are secular, some religious and some specific endowments. Appeals were, therefore filed before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner by his order dated 7th February 1969 agreed with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner. Out of the five applications and five appeals dealt with by the statutory authorities, one of them is not the subject matter of these four suits, and therefore, the four appeals before us. The Commissioner was of the view that a certain fund was constituted by the author of the trust for public charitable and religious purposes. The plaintiff in the plaint in each of these suits objected to the view taken by the Commissioner. As it would be necessary for us to set out in detail the various submissions of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 in these (sic) actions, it is unnecessary to set them out at this stage. Suffice it however to say that the main contention of the plaintiff is that neither of the trust deeds in question nor the affidavit made before the taxing authorities by the author of the trust would indicate that there was a specific endowment or religious endowment as contended and they sought for the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner dated 7th February 1969 in each of these cases. The learned Subordinate Judge after setting out the pleadings, mainly was concerned with the finding whether the suit funds do not constitute a religious or a specific endowment within the meaning of the Act or whether they constitute only a private family trust. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff, and on one was examined on the side of the defendants. The learned Judge after summarising the pleadings and the oral evidence let in came to the conclusion that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner were right in holding that the suit trust is a religious endowment and not a private trust. It is out of these judgments and decrees of the learned Judge, these appeals arise. It would suffice if we trace the history of this trust with reference to the trust deeds and the other documentary evidence let in which formed the basis of the bone of contentions between the parties.

(3.) We shall now take up A.S. 256 of 1972. Strong reliance is placed upon Ex. A 4 which is an affidavit filed by the late Arunachalam Chettiar before the Incometax authorities. It runs as follows: - -