UPPALAPATI BRAHMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Lertiorari to call for the records in G.O.Ms. No. 1183 dated 9th July, 1964 from the first respondent and to quash the said G.O. It arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner's grandfather constructed a choultry in 1906. He executed a trust deed on 7th October, 1921, appointing his son as the trustee with power to nominate the successor trustees. The son therefore nominated the present petitioner who was his son on 21st April, 1944, to administer the trust. The State Government issued a preliminary notification on 3rd October 1963, calling for objections as to why the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act should not be extended to the said endowment. The petitioner in reply filed his objection. His contention was that the endowment is not exclusively for the use of the Hindus and consequently, the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act do not apply and that the Government has no power to extend the provisions of that Act to the present endowment. In spite of these objections a final notification was issued on 9th July, 1964, extending the provisions of the said Act to the endowment in question. It is this notification that is now impugned in this writ petition. It is now fairly settled that the Act applies only to endowments created by the Hindus for the benefit of the Hindus. The Government can extend the provision only when both these things are satisfied. In this case, the grandfather of the petitioner was undoubtedly a Hindu, but the purpose for which the trust is created is not exclusively meant for the Hindus as it appears from the trust deed dated 7th October, 1921. The following clauses of the trust deed are relevant : " (1) About 15 years ago, I founded a Dharma Satram (choultry) in the hereunder ' A ' schedule mentioned site in Gurza village, Kowtaram Sub-Registry; and since then, I have been using the same for the public good. (3) It is provided that from out of the income derived annually from the said ' B' schedulementioned lands, the amount required for necessary repairs and cists for the said choultry and said" lands shall be spent, that the entire remaining income shall be utilised for the meals facilities for the Abhyagathas who would be coming daily to the said choultry and that out of the net remaining amount, Sambhavana should be given during Dasara festival in every year to Brahmins well-versed in Vedas or Shastras by spending the said amount as much as it is possible. (5) Inasmuch as I have decided that the said choultry and endowment therefore should be utilised for the public good as per the aforesaid terms, I and my heirs shall not at any time raise any dispute by way of suit etc., contrary hereto." These are the three important clauses of the trust deed. Clauses 1 and 5 make it abundantly plain that the choultry is meant for the Use of the public and not for any particular sect or people belonging to a particular religion.

(2.) THERE is no justification for qualifying the word with Hindu public. Clause 3 does not go contrary to this manifestly expressed intention of the grandfather of the petitioner. According to that clause, from the income of the lands, repairs of the choultry and payments of cist of land have to be first met. Then the entire remaining income has to be utilised for the meals facilities for the Abhayagathas. These Abhyagathas need not necessarily be Hindu Abhayagathas. They can belong to any other religion or sect as well. The word ' Abhyagatha ' does not mean anything more than a visitor or a .guest. THERE is no reason to qualify it by saying that he must be a Hindu visitor or a Hindu guest. It is only when some amount is still left that there is a direction in clause 3 that Sambhavana should be given during the Dasara festival every year to 'Brahmins who are well-versed in Vedas or Shastras. Merely because a small portion of the income is directed to be spent on Brahmins, it does not mean that the choultry has been constructed only for the exclusive use of Hindus. It must be remembered that it may happen that there is no income left to go to the Brahmins according to the directions. The predominant intention of the endower appears to be clear that after paying cist and carrying out the repairs of the choultry, the remaining income must be utilised for the meals facilities for the Abhyagathas, that is the visitors. THERE is nothing in the whole of the document which indicates that its operation is limited to the Hindu Community. The document is general and the intention seems to me to be plain that the benefit of the choultry should go to the members of the public at large. Since, the intention of the person who executed the trust deed is clear, I do not think that it admits of any doubt that the endowment is not limited to exclusively Hindus. According to section 6 (4) of the Act, "charitable endowment " means all property given or endowed for the benefit of or used as of right by, the Hindu or the Jain community or any section thereof, for the support of maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or section. These requirements not being satisfied, I do not think that the Government was justified in extending the provisions of the Act to the present endowment. It must be remembered that the provisions can be extended by the Government only in a case where it is a charitable endowment created by a Hindu for the benefit of Hindus. If these two primary facts are wanting, the Government has no power to extend the provisions of the Act to any other charitable endowment, the operation of which is not confined to Hindus or Jains. Consequently, the impugned Government Order suffers from the said infirmity and has to be quashed. I would therefore allow the writ petition and qUash the said Government Order. In the circumstances of the case, I make no orders as to costs. Petition allowed. G.O. quashed.