PATHURI VENKATA NARAYANA Vs. HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One common question arises in all these second appeals and that is whether certain lands which were granted to the holders of two offices of swastivachakam and vedaparayanam are liable to contribution under Section 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, Under that section: Every math or temple and every specific endowment attached to a math or temple shall pay annually for meeting the expenses of the Board such contribution not exceeding one and a half per-centum of its income as the Board may determine. And endowment is defined by Section 9(11) as meaning: all property belonging to, or given or endowed for the support of, maths or temples or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple.

(2.) There is an observation of Curgenven, J., in Kotayya V/s. Tellamanda , to the effect that the definition of an endowment in Section 9 is wide enough to include properties which were given to the temple servants burdened with the performance of services connected with the temple. The learned Judge expressed his opinion on page 733 thus: An endowment includes (I am going to quote only the relevant portion) property given or endowed for the performance of any service connected with the temple . Ordinarily speaking the word endowment, I think, is restricted to property the title to which vests jn the institution endowed. But this definition is very wide and I am not prepared to say that a service inam held by a temple servant would not fall within it.

(3.) That this is mere obiter is shown by the fact that notwithstanding this expression of opinion, the learned Judge held that as the case before him arose under Section 44, which required a charge on the property and there was no charge in that case, no order could be passed under Section 44. Hence it is only an expression of opinion, though it be a strong expression of opinion. In the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras V/s. Ghavali Vallayya S.A. No. 443 of 1943, the question arose directly for decision. That was a suit for contribution and the property involved was one which the learned Judge held was an archaka service inam and not a grant to the temple itself. Nevertheless, the learned Judge, Horwill, J., held that under Section 69, the property was liable to contribute. The learned Judge while referring to the definition of the expression "religious endowment"did not set out Section 9(11) in full but mentioned only this: All property.endowed for the support of maths or temples or for the performance of any service.connected therewith." and then expressed a strong view in favour of his conclusion and he relied upon the opinion of Curgenven, J., in the decision already referred to in Kotayya V/s. Yellamanda . Neither Judge referred to the last portion of the definition in Section 9 11) where it says that the endowment " does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple.