http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: KAMARAJU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/08/1968

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  563            1969 SCR  (1) 624

ACT: Andhra  Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act  36 of  1956, s. 2(E)-if a tank fell within the definition of  a charitable institution.

HEADNOTE: The appellant claimed that certain property comprised in  an Inam  which  was  abolished by virtue of  the  Andhra  Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 36 of 1956 should be registered in his name. His contention was that prior  to its abolition he was the Inamdar of that Inam though he  had the  liability to repair a tank in his village from  out  of the income of Inam was granted for a charitable purpose, the object  of  assuming the Inam was granted for  a  charitable purpose,  the. object of the charity being a tank, the  same could not be considered a charitable institution. HELD: (i) It was clear from the evidence that the -Inam  was granted in favour of the tank and was not  a grant in favour of  the  appellant’s  family subject  to  the  liability  to ’repair the tank; and furthermore that the ancestors of  the appellant and subsequently the appellant were looking  after the management of the tank.     (ii) Under Hindu law a tank can be an object of  charity and  when  a dedication is made in favour of a tank,  it  is considered  as a charitable institution.  Once it  was  held that the Inam in the present case was in favour of the tank, the  tank  in  question  must  be  considered  a  charitable institution  within  the  meaning of s.  2(E)  of  the  Act. Consequently,  after  the abolition’of the  Inam,  the  Inam property  is  converted  into Ryotwari property of the tank, to  be managed by its manager. Admittedly the appellant  was the present manager and hence the property in question  must be registered in the name of the tank but would’ continue to be managed by the appellant so long  as he  continued  to be its manager. [628 H-629 C]     Minister  of National Revenue V. Trusts  and   Guarantee Co.   Ltd., [1940] A.C. 138; Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors.  V. Shiromani  Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and  Anr, A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 116; Jamnabai V. Khimji Vallubdass &  Ors., I.L.R. (1890) 14, Bom, 1 at p. 9; and V. Mariyappa and  Ors. v.B.K.  Puttaramayya  and  Ors.  I.L.R.  [1957]  Mys.   291:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 1955. Appeal  from  the order dated August 9, 1963 of  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 431 of 1961. D.  Natsaralu,  A.  Subba  Rao  and  K.  Javaram,  for   the appellant. B. Parthasarathy, for respondent No. 1. 625 T. Satyanarayana, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde,  J.  A short, none the less interesting  question  of law  arises for decision in this appeal by certificate,  and that  question  is whether a tank can be  considered   as  a charitable  institution within the meaning of those words in s.  2(E)  of the Andhra Inams (Abolition &  Conversion  into Ryotwari  Act) 1956 (Act No. 36 of 1956) (to be  hereinafter referred to as the Act). The  Inam  with which we are concerned in this  case  stands abolished  under the Act.  The appellant wants the  property comprised  in that Inam to be registered in his  name.   His contention is that prior to its abolition he was  the/namdar of that Inam though he had the liability to repair the  tank in  his  village from out of the income  of  that/nam.   The Authorities under the Act have rejected ’Iris claim that  he was the Inamdar of the Inam in question.  They have come  to the  conclusion that the Inam was in favour of the tank  and that  he was in possession of the Inam property only as  the Manager of the tank which according to them was a charitable institution.   This conclusion has been upheld by  the  High Court. It is not known as to who granted the Inam in question.  The grant  is  lost  in antiquity.  The only  evidence  we  have relating  to this/nam are the entries in the Inam  register. A  copy  of that register has been produced  in  this  case. Therein  the Inam is shown to have been granted to the  tank "uracheruvu".   Under column 8 it is mentioned that  it  was given  for  repairs of the pond called  uracheruvu  situated close to the village.  Under column 10 it is mentioned  that it is to be in force so long as the repairs of the tank  are performed.   The ancestor of the appellant was shown  to  be the  Manager of the charitable institution viz.,  the  tank. Under  the  remarks column it is mentioned "The pond  is  of great  use  for the cattle and people of the  village.   The Inam can be confirmed permanently so long as the repairs are performed.   The  pond  for which the  Inam  was  originally granted was situated north to the village and is now out  of use.  At the request of the villagers the late Collector Mr. Fraser  issued  an order in 1819 that the proceeds  of  this Inam  can be applied to the present existing Kunta which  is south to the village and so of use." From  these entries it is clear that the Inam  was   granted in favour of the tank known as "uracheruvu".  It has been so considered  at  least ever since 1819.   Therefore   we  are unable   to uphold the contention of the appellant  that  it was   a  grant  in  favour of  his  family  subject  to  the liability  to.  repair  the  tank.   It  appears  that   the ancestors of the appellant and  at present    the  appellant is looking after the management of the tank. 626 Mr.  Narsaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant  contended that  even  if we come to the conclusion that the  Inam  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

granted for a charitable purpose, the object of the  charity being a tank, the same cannot be considered as a  charitable institution.   According to him a tank cannot be  considered as an institution.  In support of that contention of his  he relied on the dictionary meaning of the term  ’institution’. According  to the dictionary meaning the term  ’institution’ means "a body or organization of an association brought into being  for  the purpose of achieving  some  object".  Oxford Dictionary  defines an ’institution’ as  "an   establishment organisation or association, instituted for the promotion of some  object  especially one of public or  general  utility, religions, charitable, educational, etc." Other Dictionaries define  the  same  word as  ’organised  society  established either by law or the authority of individuals, for promoting any  object,  public or social’.   In Minister  of  National Revenue  V.  Trusts a.nd Guarantee Co. Ltd.  (1)  the  Privy Council observed:               "It  is by no means easy to give a  definition               of  the _ word "institution" that  will  cover               every  use  of it.  Its  meaning  must  always               depend upon the context in which it is found." In  Masjid  Shahid  Ganj  and  Ors.  V.  Shiromani  Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar and Anr.(2) the Privy Council considered  a  Madrasah  as institution  though  it  doubted whether   the  same  can  be  considered  as   a   "juristic personality".  This is what the Privy Council observed:               "A  gift  can be made to a  madrasah  in  like               manner as to a masjid.  The right of suit   by               the mutwali or other manager or by any  person               entitled to a benefit (whether individually or               as a member of the  public or merely in common               with certain other persons ) seems hitherto to               have been found sufficient for the purpose  of               maintaining Mohomedan endowments.  At best the               institution  is but a caput mortuum, and  some               human  agency  is  always  required  to   take               delivery   of property and to apply it to  the               intended purposes.  Their Lordships, with  all               respect to the High Court of Lahore, must  not               be   ’taken  as  deciding  that  a   "juristic               personality"  may be extended for any  purpose               to Muslim institutions generally or to mosques               in particular.  On this general question  they               reserve their opinion." We  may  at this stage state that the Act  has  not  defined either  the  expression  "charitable  institution"  or  even "institution". Therefore we have to find out the meaning  of that  term  with  reference to the context in  which  it  is found.  We must remember that  the (1) [1940] A.C. 138.                  (2) A.I.R. 1940  P.C., 116. 627 expression  "charitable  institution" is used in  a  statute which   abolishes   Inams.   The  Inam  in   question   must undoubtedly have been granted by a Hindu. Most of the  Inams abolished  by the Act were those granted by Hindu  Kings  in the past.  According to Hindu conceptions  a tank has always been considered as an object of charity.  In the Tagore  Law Lectures   delivered  in  1892  by  late  Parelit   Prannath Saraswati on "The Hindu Law of Endowments",                   "From   very  ancient  times  the   sacred               writings   of   the   Hindus   divided   works               productive   of  religions   merit  into   two               divisions    named   ishta   and    purta    a               classification  which  has come  down  to  our

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             times.  So much so that the entire objects  of               Hindu endowments will be found included within               the  enumeration of ishta  and   purta  works.               In  the Rig Veda ishtapurttam (sacrifices  and               charities  )  are described as  the  means  of               going  to  heaven. In commenting on  the  same               passage  Sayana explains ishtapurtta to denote               "the  gifts  bestowed  in  srauta  and  smarka               rites."     In   the   Taittiriya    Aranyaka,               ishtapurtta  occur in much the same sense  and               Sayana  in  commenting on  the  same  explains               ishta  to  denote "Vedic   rites  like  Darsa,               Purnamasa  etc. and purta "to  denote  Smarkta               works like tanks, wells etc.". At page 26 he again quotes Vyasa in these words:       "Tanks,  wells  with flights of  steps,  temples,  the bestowing of food, and groves-these are called purttam." At  page  27,  the learned lecturer  enumerates  the  purtta works.  Amongst them is included the construction  of  works for the storage of water, as wells, baolis, tanks etc.   The learned lecturer devotes his tenth lecture to "purtta".   In the  course  of  that  lecture  he  again  states  that  the construction of reservoirs  of  water  is. classed by  Hindu sages  amongst  the "purtta" and charitable works.  In  this connection he quotes from various treatises such as: (i) Ashwalayana Grihya Parishishta; (ii) Vishnu Dharmottara; (iii) Skanda Purana; (iv) Nandi Purana; (v) Aditya Purana; (vi) Yama; (vii) Mahabharata etc. etc. In  Jamnabai  v. Khimji Vullubdass and Ors.(1)  Sir  Charles Sargent  Kt., C.J. while interpreting a will observed  thus: (1) I.L.R. [1890] 14, Bom., 1 at p. 9. 13 Sup. C1/68-9 628               "We come to the latter part of clause 6, which               directs  the building of a well  and  "avada",               (cistern for animals to drink water from), out               of the surplus of his fund after providing for               the   outley  of  the  two    sadavarats   and               repairing  his property.  Mr. Justice  Jardine               considered  he could not presume a  charitable               object in a well and "avada".  Such an  object               is  so  frequently the  result  of  charitable               intention  in Oriental countries, and  i.s  so               entirely in accordance with the notions of the               people of this country that we think  that, in               the  absence  of  anything to  show  that  the               testator  intended the well and "avada" to  be               built  for  the benefit  of  the  property-and               there is nothing in the presen’t will to  show               such  intention   they should be  presumed  to               have  intended by the testator for the use  of               the public." In  V. Mariyappa and Ors. v.B.K. Puttaramayya and  Ors(x)  a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court observed thus:               "The maintenance of Sadavartas, tanks,   seats               of learning and homes for the disabled or  the               destitute   and   similar   institutions    is               recognised by and well known to Hindu law, and               when  maintained as public  institutions  they               must be taken to have a legal personality   as               a Matha or the diety in a temple has, and  the               persons  in  charge of  the  Management  would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

             occupy a position of trust." That  decision  proceeds on the basis that a tank can  be  a charitable  institution under Hindu law.  That decision  was quoted with approval by late Bijan Kumar Mukherjea who later became  the Chief Justice of this Court, in his  Tagore  Law Lectures delivered  in August 1951.  Therein he observed:               "It  has  been  held  that  though  Mutts  and               temples  are  the most common forms  of  Hindu               religious    institutions,   dedication    for               religious  or  charitable  purposes  need  not                             necessarily  take one of these forms and  that               the maintenance of sadabartas, tanks, seats of               learning  and  homes for the disabled  or  the               destitute   and   similar   institutions   are               recognised by and well known to Hindu law  and               when maintained as public institutions,   they               must be taken to have a legal personality as a               Matha  or the deity in a temple has,  and  the               persons  in  charge of  the  management  would               occupy a position of trust." From the above discussion it is seen’ that under Hindu law a tank  can be an object of charity and when a  dedication  is made in (1) I.L.R. [1957] Mys. 291. 629 favour  of  a tank, the same is considered as  a  charitable institution. It is not necessary for our present purpose  to decide  whether that institution can also be considered as a juristic  person.  Once we come to the conclusion  that  the Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an Inam in favour  of  the   "uracheruvu"  (tank)  that  tank  must  be considered  as  a  charitable  institution  under  the  Act. Consequently  after  the abolition  of the  Inam,  the  Inam property  gets itself converted into Royatwari property,  of the "uracheruvu", to be managed by its Manager.   Admittedly the appellant is its present Manager.   Hence  the  property in question has to be registered in the name of the tank but it will" continue to be managed by the appellant so long  as he continues to be its Manager. In  the  result subject to our observations as  regards  the management  of  the property, the appeal is  dismissed.   No costs. R.K.P.S.                                   Appeal dismissed. 630