STATE OF MADRAS Vs. MAHADEVA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 24 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri, namely, the State of Madras, represented by the Collector, Salem and the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable endowments Department, Madras, have filed the above second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in a. S. No. 128 of 1973.

(2.) THE facts of the case are briefly as follows' respondents 1 and 2 herein and two others filed the suit O. S. No. 24 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif at Krishnagiri , for a declaration that the suit properties do not constitute a public charitable endowment within the meaning of Secs. 3 and 6, Clause (5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 and for a consequential injunction restraining the second appellant from making an enquiry in respect of the suit properties and for other reliefs. THE case of respondents 1 and 2 is that the lands described in items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule were granted by the British government to Sri Arunachala Iyer , who is the great grand-father of the first respondent and the fifth respondent in or about 1844 for his having constructed a private charity with his own funds and on his own site. THEre has been no dedication of the choultry to the public at any time either by Arunachala Iyer or his descendants. No member of the public could claim to use of the choultry as of right THE said Arunachala Iyer and his descendants refused permission to undesirable persons for proper reasons and such refusals have never been challenged. Arunachala Iyer died before 1862, leaving his only son Samayyar who is the predecessor in title of respondents 1 and 2. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule have been granted in inam to Arunachala Iyer absolutely and the gifts were in recognition of his having a reward or gift for the meritorious act already done by the individual. THE grant was not an endowment for the choultry. THE said lands, according to the entries in the B register, were enfranchised and as such, they ceased to have the character of inam. A plea was also taken that in any event the grant is a personal grant burdened with service and that the inamdars are entitled to enjoy the same as long as they maintain the choultry. THE proposed enquiry by. the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is in contravention of Art. 12 of the Constitution and affects the fundamental rights of respondents I and 2 and others.

(3.) COMING to the oral evidence, P. W. I the first respondent stated.'the choultry is being used by members of Hindu community for public purposes but only with their permission'. P. W. 3 has stated'all Hindus are eligible for occupying the choultry. The two admissions of the above said witnesses only indicate the use of the choultry by Hindus. But, from that, it cannot be said the persons of other religions are excluded from the use of the choultry. In the circumstances the conclusion of the appellate Court that the choultry is not a Hindu charitable endowment is correct. However, it is made clear that the choultry and the properties endowed in support of the same are public charitable endowments and the law relating to the public endowments will apply to the same. So far as the second appeal is concerned, the only question to be decided is whether the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 are applicable to the above endowment. In view of the fact that the choultry cannot be said to be a Hindu Charitable Endowment, the provisions of the Act will have no application. The conclusion arrived at by the appellate Court is correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the same in the second appeal. In the result the second appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 18. 12. 1987: The memorandum of cross-objections and aforesaid second appeal having been posted on this day before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice David Annoussamy the Court delivered the following Judgment :'