Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the second appeal of the appellant, the Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer. The first respondent, P K Thoppulan Chettiar Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee, sought permission from the civil court to sell a portion of the suit property to the fourth respondent. The suit property was originally purchased by Thoppulan Chettiar in 1887, who constructed a stone mandapam for the deity and performed charitable activities such as distributing water and millet porridge during festivals. In 1901, he executed a Deed of Settlement directing his descendants to continue these charities from their business income and prohibiting sale or mortgage of the property. Over time, the property faced encroachments, and the trust decided to sell 20,865 square feet out of 25,000 square feet, retaining the area with the stone mandapam, to generate income for the charity. The appellant opposed the sale, contending that the property was a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and that only the Commissioner under Section 34 could sanction the sale, not the civil court. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the trust, holding that the trust was private and the Act did not apply. The first appellate court and the High Court affirmed this. The Supreme Court examined the Deed of Settlement and found that it did not dedicate the property to the deity or create a specific endowment. The charity was to be performed from the trustees' business income, and the management was confined to lineal descendants. The court held that the trust was private, not public, and thus the Act of 1959 was inapplicable. The civil court had jurisdiction to permit the sale. The absolute restraint on alienation in the deed was void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. Applying the doctrine of cypres, the court allowed the sale to fulfill the charitable object. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the sale.
Headnote
A) Trust Law - Private Trust vs Public Trust - Determination of Nature of Trust - The court examined the Deed of Settlement to determine whether the trust was public or private. The deed directed the settlor's descendants to continue charitable activities from their business income and did not dedicate the property to the deity. The management was confined to lineal descendants, and no public participation or HR&CE control existed. Held that the trust is a private trust, not a public religious trust under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Paras 9-14).
B) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Specific Endowment - Section 6(19) - The court held that for a specific endowment, there must be a dedication of property for a religious purpose. The Deed of Settlement did not create any charge or encumbrance in favor of the deity; the charity was to be performed from the income of the trustees' business, not from the property itself. Held that no specific endowment was created (Paras 9-14).
C) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Bar under Section 108 of Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act - Since the trust was private and the Act of 1959 was not applicable, the civil court had jurisdiction to sanction the sale. Section 108 bars suits only for matters covered by the Act, which did not apply here. Held that the civil court could permit the sale (Paras 5-6, 14).
D) Transfer of Property Act - Restraint on Alienation - Section 10 - The absolute restraint on sale or mortgage in the Deed of Settlement was void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The trustees could sell the property with court permission to fulfill the charitable object. Held that the sale was permissible (Para 14).
E) Trusts - Doctrine of Cypres - Application - Due to encroachments and difficulties in maintaining the property, the trustees sought to sell a portion to generate income for the charity. The court applied the doctrine of cypres to allow the sale to carry out the settlor's intention. Held that the sale was justified (Paras 3, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901 created a specific endowment regulated by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to permit the sale of the suit property.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the trial court, first appellate court, and High Court. The court held that the trust is a private trust, not a public religious trust, and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 does not apply. The civil court had jurisdiction to permit the sale. The Deed of Settlement did not create a specific endowment in favor of the deity. The sale of 20,865 square feet to the fourth respondent was allowed, with the proceeds to be deposited in a nationalised bank to generate income for the charity.
Law Points
- Specific endowment
- Private trust vs public trust
- Applicability of Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959
- Jurisdiction of civil court
- Doctrine of cypres
- Restraint on alienation under Transfer of Property Act 1882
Case Details
Civil Appeal No 9492 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No 10520 of 2017)
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Mr Mohan Parasaran (for appellant), Mr V Giri (for respondents)
The Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner
P K Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee and Ors
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment dismissing second appeal and upholding trial court decree permitting sale of trust property.
Remedy Sought
The appellant (idol of Sri Renganathaswamy) sought to set aside the High Court judgment and prevent the sale of the suit property, contending that the property was a specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act and only the Commissioner could sanction the sale.
Filing Reason
The first respondent trust sought permission from the civil court to sell a portion of the suit property to generate income for charitable activities, which was opposed by the appellant claiming the property was dedicated to the deity.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli) decreed the suit on 10 November 2004, holding the trust was private and the Act of 1959 did not apply. The first appellate court (Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli) upheld this on 31 August 2005. The High Court dismissed the second appeal on 1 December 2016.
Issues
Whether the Deed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901 created a specific endowment under Section 6(19) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959.
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to permit the sale of the suit property or whether only the Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act could sanction the sale.
Whether the trust was a public religious trust or a private trust.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: The Deed of Settlement dedicated the property to the deity for charitable activities, creating a specific endowment. The trust is a public religious trust governed by the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act. Only the Commissioner under Section 34 can sanction the sale, and the civil suit is barred by Section 108.
Respondents: The trust is private, not public. No notification under Section 3 of the Act applies. The Deed of Settlement did not create a specific endowment; the charity was to be performed from business income. The absolute restraint on sale is void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale is necessary to fulfill the charitable object under the doctrine of cypres.
Ratio Decidendi
The Deed of Settlement did not dedicate the property to the deity or create a specific endowment; the charity was to be performed from the trustees' business income. The trust was private as management was confined to lineal descendants and no public participation or HR&CE control existed. Therefore, the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act was inapplicable, and the civil court had jurisdiction to permit the sale. The absolute restraint on alienation was void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the sale was justified under the doctrine of cypres to fulfill the charitable object.
Judgment Excerpts
The question that arises for our consideration is whether the Deed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901 creates a specific endowment, regulated by the Act of 1959.
The nature of the instrument must be ascertained on a fair and reasonable construction of the Deed considered as a whole.
The charity was to be performed from the income derived from the suit property. If the income was found to be higher, the excess income was to be kept as reserve family fund.
The trustees were prohibited from selling or mortgaging the suit property specifically dedicated for the purpose of the charity.
The suit filed by the respondent is not maintainable as Section 34 of the Act of 1959 empowers the Commissioner to sanction any sale of the property governed by the Act of 1959.
The first respondent cannot seek sanction of the civil court to sell an endowed property as Section 108 of Act of 1959 bars a civil suit from being instituted in respect of matters covered by the provisions of the Act of 1959.
The provisions of the Act of 1959 are not applicable to the first respondent. Under Section 3, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable to charitable endowments only upon the issuance of a notification by the government on grounds of mismanagement or maladministration by the trustees.
The charities to be undertaken by the private trust are not confined to only Hindus. The first respondent is a secular trust established for the public in general and without any distinction on grounds of religion, caste or creed.
The Deed of Settlement does not create any specific endowment in favour of the appellant deity.
The management and administration of the first respondent trust is only dealt with by the lineal descendants of the founder of the trust.
The civil court has the jurisdiction in respect of the suit filed by the first respondent seeking permission for the sale of the suit property.
The restraint created in the Deed of Settlement is void under Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882.
By virtue of the doctrine of cypres, the suit property should be allowed to be sold to the fourth respondent for the purpose of fulfilling the intention of the settlor to carry out the charity.
DW 5, the assistant superintendent of the temple, admitted during his cross-examination that the temple never exercised any control over the respondent trust and there is no dedication of the suit property in favour of the temple.
Procedural History
The first respondent trust filed Original Suit No. 60 of 2004 before the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission to sell the suit property. The trial court decreed the suit on 10 November 2004. The appellant appealed to the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli, who dismissed the appeal on 31 August 2005. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 1 December 2016. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10520 of 2017, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 9492 of 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: Section 3, Section 6(19), Section 34, Section 108
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Section 10
- Indian Trusts Act, 1882: Section 1
