http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRUPATHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: TIRUMALAI TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/02/1974

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:  1974 AIR  521            1974 SCR  (3) 924  1974 SCC  (1) 683

ACT: Madras     District     Municipalities     Act,     1920--S. 83(1)(b)--Whether   Tirumalai  Tirupathi   Devasthanam   New Choultry is exempt from property tax.

HEADNOTE: The  plaintiff/respondent  filed  a suit  in  the  court  of Subordinate  Judge,  for a declaration  that  the  building, known  as "Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam New  Choultry"  is exempt  from  property  tax  u/s.  83(1)(b)  of  the  Madras District  Municipalities  Act, 1920 and  for  directing  the defendant,  the Municipal Council, Tirupathi, to refund  the sum of Rs. 22,306.40 paid under protest. According  to  the plaintiff, the said building  is  a  free Devasthanam Choultry intended purely for the convenience  of the  visiting pilgrims and therefore, exempt  from  property tax.   The  defendants’  case is  that  while  pilgrims  are accommodated  in the ground floor free of charge, the  rooms in  the first floor are rented out to pilgrims  and  others. Further, the plaintiff was deriving a very large income from the various stalls and shops situated inside the premises of the choultry and therefore not exempt from tax. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit but on appeal,  the High  Court reversed the judgment and decree of  the  trial- court  and  decreed the plaintiff’s suit  holding  that  the plaintiff is entitled to exemption under s. 83 of the Act. S. 83(1) of the Act provides as follows "The following building and lands shall be: exempt from  the property tax:- (a) (b)  choultries  for  the  occupation of which  no  rent  is charged  and choultries the rent charged for the  occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes;" Dismissing the appeal, HELD:(i) The word "choultry" is not defined in the Act.  The word   however,  means  a  shelter  or  resting  place   for travellers. (Law  Lexicon  of  British  India  compiled  and  edited  by Ramnatha Aiyar, 1940 Ed.) (ii)Choultry  is  indeed  an  ancient  institution  and   is principally meant for lodging of pilgrims and travellers. it is  conceivable  that  in 1884,  when  the  first  Municipal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Legislation  was  passed in Madras, such  institutions  were some humble sheds; but in course of time, such  institutions grew in size and more and more demands were made of them for comfort  and  convenience of the  pilgrims.   Therefore,  it would be necessary to look at the institution from the point of  view  of  the predominant  intention  which  guides  the building up of the complex as a whole. (iii)In  the present case, the choultry cannot  be  divorced from the other offices, shops and concerns which are  mainly located within its precincts in order to render  much-needed services  to  the  pilgrims.  It is clear  that  the  entire income  is used exclusively for the purpose of the  choultry which  is indeed a charitable purpose.  Therefore, the  case falls squarely under sec. 81(1)(b) and therefore exempt from property tax.  295 Kesarpalli  Amaneyelu and another V. Eluru Municipality,  by its  Executive Officer The commissioner and another,  [1964] I.L.R.  Andhra Pradesh (Part IV) 379, Sri  Kayakaparameswari Anna  Satram  represented  by  the  Secretary,  Sri   Batchu Venkateswarlu  v.  The Vijayawada Municipality,  represented by its Executive Officer, The Municipal Commissioner  [1959] 2  Andhra  Weekly Reporter, 325; Kandandaram Pillai  v.  The Municipal  Council, Trichinopoly, [1933] 65 M.L.J.  678  and Pandarasannadhi,  Tiruvannamalai Adhinam v. The  Corporation of Madras[1941] 2 M.L.I. 544, referred to and distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 568 of 1969. From  the judgment and decree dated the 27th February,  1968 of’ the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 117 of 1963. M.   Natesan,  K. Jayaram and Y.  Chandrasekheran,  for  the appellant  Krishnarao, E. Kalvanaram and G. N. Rao, for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.-This  appeal by the dependent in  the  original suit  is by certificate granted by the High Court of  Andhra Pradesh  to  appeal against the judgment and decree  of  the said Court of 27th February, 1968.  The facts may briefly be stated. The   respondent  (hereinafter  to  be  described   as   the plaintiff)   is   the;   Tirumalai   Tirupathi   Devasthanam represented   by  its  executive  officer.   The   plaintiff instituted  a  suit in the court of the  Subordinate  Judge, Chittoor,  on  10th March, 1961, praying for  a  declaration that  the building known as "Tirumala Tirupathi  Devasthanam New  Choultry"  situated within the area  of  the  Municipal Council  Tirupathi (hereinafter described as the  defendant) bearing  assessment  No. 5361 of Tirupati  Municipality,  is exempted  from property tax under section 83 (1) (b) of  the Madras  District  Municipalities Act 1920 (Madras Act  V  of 1920), briefly the Act, and for directing the defendant  to, refund  the sum of Rs. 22,306.40, the amount of tax  so  far paid  under  protest.  It appears that  the  plaintiff  paid property  tax in respect of this budding for  several  years under  protest and without prejudice to its right to file  a suit.   After the plaintiff failed to get redress  from  the authorities,  the suit was filed.  The plaintiff  states  in the  plaint ,that the said building is a free  Devasthanamas choultry intended purely for the convenience of the pilgrims visiting the famous Holy Shrine of Sri Venkateswara Swami at Tirumala  and other Devasthanams attached to  the  plaintiff Devasthanams  and  is used solely and’ exclusively  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

said  purpose and no other".  The plaintiff  further   inter alia, avers in para 7 of the plaint as follows :-               "The  defendant  has failed to note  and  take               into  consideration, as it ought to  have  the               fact  that the canteen, the  Firewood  stores,               the  Transport office Workshop,  Garages,  the               galvanized  Iron Sheet sheds for  parking  the               Transport   vehicles,  the   Railway   Booking               Office,   the  Mysore   Government   Transport               Office, the Devastbanams Sanitary  Inspector’s               Office,  the Enquiry Office, Garages of  cars,               shed  for  Water pump,  Laundry,  Hair-cutting               Saloon, the Post Office and               296               Free  Medical  Dispensary,  are  all   located               within  the schedule mentioned  premises  only               with  a view to providing  conveniences  which               the plaintiff is under a statutory  obligation               to  provide to the visiting  pilgrims  without               deriving any rents, returns, profits or  other               receipts." The  defendant resisted the suit.  It denied in the  written statement  that  the  building  "is  an  out  and  out  free Choultry".  The defendant further avers that "while pilgrims are  accommodated  in  the  ground  .floor  portion  of  the Choultry  free of charge, the rooms in the first  floor  are rented  out  to Pilgrims and others.  Further  in  the  main building.  :as  well as in the other  buildings  within  the compound  of the choultry, there are several  shops,  stalls and offices.  There is the canteen, which ,admittedly caters not only to the pilgrim visitors staying in the choultry but also to the general public.  There is a brass vessel shop, a fire wood depot, a Transport Office, a motor workshop with 9 garages,  a Railway Booking Room, a Mysore Transport  Office Room, the Sanitary Inspector’s Office Room, Enquiry  Office, 6  garages, (2) residential portions for  Superintendent,  a water  pump  shed,  a laundry, a barber  shop,  and  a  Post Office.  It will be seen that the business in several of the above  shops and stalls and the amenities  provided  therein are  not  solely connected with the purpose  of  either  the choultry  or  the worship in the temple.  The  plaintiff  is deriving  a  very  large income from  the  said  stalls  and shops........  The annual rental value of the ’building  was calculated only after excluding the portions that are- being used for the purposes of the free choultry". By  consent  of parties, a large number  of  documents  were marked  as  exhibits, and the plaintiff  examined  only  the Superintendent of the New Choultry as the sole witness while the  defendant  did  not  adduce  any  oral  evidence.   The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit observing as follows :- "On  considering  all  these aspects I am  of  opinion  that neither  the several offices and shops situated  within  the premises  of  the choultry, nor the furnished rooms  in  the main  choultry are entitled to exemption from  property  tax under section 83 of the Madras District Municipalities Act". The   Trial   Court  relied  upon  the  decisions   in   Sri Kanyakaparameswari   Anna   Satram,   represented   by   the Secretary,   Sri  Batchu  Venkatesswar  v.  The   Vijayawada Municipality,  represented  by its  Executive  Officer,  the Municipal  Commissioner(1)  and  Madura  Municipal   Council through  its  Commissioner, Rajiah D. Paul v.  Madura  etc., Devasthanams  represented  by its Executive Officer,  R.  S. Nayudu (2) and rejected the plaintiff’s claim.  On appeal by the  plaintiff  to  the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh,  the Division  Bench  reversed the judgment ,and  decree  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Trial  Court and decreed the plaintiff’s suit  holding  that the  plaintiff is entitled to exemption under section 83  or the Act. (1)  1959 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter 325. (2)  A. I. R. 1942 Madras 658. 297 The  evidence in the case is absolutely one sided and  there is no controversy about the facts.  The High Court has found that  "there is only one institution, one building and  that building  provides  for rest of the pilgrims who  visit  the place and the pilgrims are numerous to common knowledge.  It is  not enough to have merely accommodation in building  but the people would like to ’have other amenities and it is the other   amenities  that  are  provided  as   stated   above. Therefore we have to treat all these including the rooms  as one  single  unit  which  is intended  for  resting  of  the pilgrims  who  visit the place and should not as  the  lower court   did,   separate  these  amenities  from   the   main institution.   No rent is charged except in one  case  where there  is one brass co-operative store which pays  Rs.  30/- per month towards rent.  In this case the test laid down for deciding  whether  the institution is a choultry or  not  is fully satisfied as there is much accommodation in the ground and first floor for resting place.  What is objected to  and contended is that it ceases to be, a choultry with all these amenities.   provided   there.   In  our  opinion   if   the institution  is  essentially  one  for  providing  rest  and shelter for pilgrims, the mere fact that there are amenities attached  to  the institution should not  detract  from  its being,  a  choultry.   On the other hand  it  amplifies  and provides  more  comforts to the  pilgrims  without  charging anything  for  them".  The High Court also found  that  "the amount  collected  for services and other amenities  is  far less and it is not sufficient to meet the expenditure to run the  choultry.......... What is derived by the  choultry  is only  an  amount  of Rs. 15000/- and odd  which  is  service charges.   But  over  and above that a  large  amount  which equals double the amount is spent.  The charges,  therefore, must  necessarily,  have  been  spent  and’  are  spent,  as accounts  show,  for  purposes of charity  and  whatever  is collected, whether from the cooperative society at the  rate of  Rs.  30/per mensem or service charges  levied  from  the pilgrims, it is only a small amount.  All this amount is not sufficient   to   meet  the  annual’  expenditure   of   the institution and the balance must come from the pocket of the Devasthanam.   It is therefore difficult to accept the  con- tention  that  there is no proof that the  collections  were applied  exclusively for the choultry.  The  expenditure  is one,  the  institution is one and the collections  are  also exclusively for services connected with the institution  and not  by  way of rent.  All these indicate and point  to  the conclusion  that  the  collections  are  applied  only   for purposes  of  charity.   It  is  not  a  business  and   the institution  is not making any profit and  profit-motive  is not  behind the actions of the Devasthanam in levying  small charges  for the services rendered.  All these  charges  are meant mainly for the 30 rooms in the first floor." The  High Court came to the above findings and also  noticed "that  the  learned Subordinate Judge over-looked  the  fact that there were rooms on the ground floor and they are  also used for the pilgrims". Mr. Natesan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the plaintiff cannot in law claim exemption under section 83 (1)  (b) of the Act.  We may, therefore, read  the  material provisions in the section with which we are concerned :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

298               83(1) "The following buildings and lands shall               be exempt from the: property tax :-                            x              x               (b)   choultries  for the occupation of  which               no  rent  is charged and choultries  the  rent               charged  for the occupation of which  is  used               exclusively for charitable purposes;"                             x              x               The,  word  "choultry" is not defined  in  the               Act.  The word is ,defined in the Law  Lexicon               of  British  India  compiled  and  edited   by               Ramanatha Aiyar, 1940 edition, as follows :-               "Choultry   :   Chatram,  A  choultry   is   a               corruption of chavadi.  It means a shelter  or               resting  place  for  travellers.   A  chathram               (corruption  of  the Sanskrit  Sathram)  is  a               house where pilgrims and travellers are fed". In  the  Shorter  Oxford  English  Dictionary,  choultry  is described  as  an  Anglo-Indian word  "being  corruption  of Telugu   chawadi"   and   its  meaning  is   given   as   "A caravanserai".  In Wilson’s Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms,  second  edition,  page 108, "he  word  is  given  in different  forms  such  as  Chawati  or  Chauti,  corruptly, Choltry  or Choultry and the meaning is given as  "A  public lodging place, a shelter for travellers". The  earliest  Act on the subject in Madras  is  the  Madras DiStrict  Municipalities  Act  of 1884.   Even  there  under section 63(1), amongst others, choultries were exempted from payment  of tax on buildings and lands.  The  word  choultry was  not defined even in that Act.  The present Act of  1920 has repealed the aforesaid old Act under section 2 read with Schedule 1. In the absence of a statutory definition in  the Act,  recourse has to be taken to the meaning attributed  to the word in the dictionaries and the law lexicons as well as to  the popular concept of the term.  Choultry is indeed  an ancient institution and is principally meant for lodging  of pilgrims  and travellers.  It is conceivable that  in  1884, when  the first municipal legislation was passed in  Madras. such   institutions  were  some  humble  sheds   and   other structures to enable, the pilgrims to stay for a short while when they came to visit temples and other religious  places. This institution, like similar others elsewhere, has come to stay as a symbol of religious and charitable disposition  of human  mind  translated into physical manifestation  in  the shape of safe shelter for the pilgrims.  As man advances and ideas  grow and expand, with his ever increasing desire  for comfort  and  convenience, the shape of  the  choultry  must needs also change. It is, therefore,only to be expected that with the growing funds of the Devastbanams, such  choultries will  be constructed in a modern way catering to  the  needs and  requirements  of  the, pilgrims  and  visitors  of  all classes  in a self-contained unit or complex.  It  would  be necessary to look at the institution from the point of  view of the predominant intention which guides the building up of the complex as a. whole.  299 The  object  for which a choultry is built is  advanced  and facilitated  by  making provisions for  so  many  incidental conveniences which the visitors and pilgrims coming from far and  wide may need in order to make their short stay in  the neighbourhood of the temple comfortable and convenient  from all  points of view so that they are not required to  go  to and  fro and face difficulties.  The concept of  a  choultry to-day  may,  therefore, be completely different  from  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

with  which one may be familiar a hundred years ago.   There must,  however,  be no idea of profit motive in  running  or administering  a  choultry.   Besides  the  expenditure  for running a choultry with amenities should not be made with an idea  to  realise it from the visitors using the  same.   In other words, the choultry must in truth and reality bear the hall mark of a charitable institution and should not partake of  the character of a hotel run for profit.  The  appellant concedes that the first floor as well as the ground floor of the building which are used for lodging of the pilgrims  may be exempted from tax and indeed tax has not been realised in respect  of the rooms on the ground floor of  the  choultry. The appellant, however, submits that the offices, shops  and other concerns some of which are located in the choultry and others  within the campus, cannot be considered as part  and parcel  of the choultry and, therefore, are not exempt  from tax.  We have examined the entire evidence in. this case and have given careful consideration to the findings of the High Court  with  regard to the same and are clearly  of  opinion that the choultry cannot be divorced from the other offices, shops  and  concerns  which are mainly  located  within  its precincts in order to render much-needed and other necessary services  to the pilgrims coming to pay homage to  the  Holy Shrine  of  Sri Venkateswara Swami.  In the  ’absence  of  a precise  definition  of  the  word  "choultry"  in  the  Act excluding such offices, shops and concerns in the precincts, we are unable to restrict the term "choultry" in the context of the economic development and improved standard of  living of our people, to only that portion of the building which is directly used for lodging of visitors and pilgrims.  We arc, therefore,  of  the  view that the High Court  is  right  in holding that the appellant is not entitled to charge tax  on the choultry as claimed. Under section 81 of the Act, property tax is leviable if the Municipal Council by resolution determines that it shall  be levied  on buildings and lands within the  municipal  limits save  and except those exempted by or under the Act  or  any other  law.  Then section 83 provides for general  exemption under  various heads and categories.  There  are  exceptions within  exceptions in section 83 itself with a  proviso  and explanation with which we are not directly concerned in this appeal.   Some light is, however, thrown by  explanation  to section 83 which it may be appropriate to quote "Explanation-The exemption granted under this section  shall not extended to residential quarters attached to schools and colleges  not  being  hostels  or  to  residential  quarters attached to hospitals, dispensaries and libraries". Similarly  there is a proviso in the section with  reference to  clauses  (a),  (c) and (e) to the  effect  that  nothing contained in these clauses 300 shall be deemed to exempt from property tax any building  or land  for  which rent is payable by the  person  or  persons using  the  same for the purposes referred to  in  the  said clauses".   Nothing  similar to this has  been  superimposed upon the exemption allowed under the Act to choultries under section  8 3 (1) (b) and the matter is kept unabridged  even without  attempting  to  define the word  and  there  is  no carving out of any exception within the exception as in  the case of schools, hospitals, etc. Even  then  a  line will have to  be  drawn  to  distinguish between what is incidental or subservient to the main object and  purpose  of  the choultry and  the  oblique  motive  of profit-making  to deprive the Municipality of  its  rightful dues.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

It  is well recognised that there is no equity  or  morality about  a  tax and a taxing statute or provision  has  to  be construed  strictly  on its plain  meaning  where  possible. Similarly  who so ever claims exemption from tax  under  the law,  has  to establish his own case as falling  within  the exemption  clause.   In case of any  ambiguity  the  benefit will, however, go to the tax payer. Not  being unmindful to the above principles, we are  unable to  hold  in  this  case that  the  New  Choultry  with  its expending   beneficial  complex,  as  established   in   the evidence,   not  viable  by  itself  but  maintained  in   a substantially  large  measure out of the  Devasthanam  funds predominantly in the interest of numerous visiting  pilgrims from  far and wide, is not exempt from tax under section  83 (1) (b). In  the view we have taken about the choultry in this  case, we  hold that there is no evidence to show that any rent  as such  is charged for the occupation of the choultry and  the minimal  service  charges even for the rooms  in  the  first floor cannot be treated as rent.  There is only evidence  of realisation  of  rent of Rs. 30/- per month from  the  brass cooperative  store  within the campus, but that  is  a  very insignificant item when we consider that everything else  is found  by the High Court to be rent-free.  The evidence  has established  that  the entire income from  whatever  sources from  the choultry is not sufficient for the maintenance  of the same.  It is, therefore, obvious that the entire income, including  even the nominal rent charged from the brass  co- operative store, is used exclusively for the purpose of  the choultry  which is indeed a charitable purpose.   The  case, therefore,  falls squarely under section 83 (1) (b)  of  the exemption clause. The  appellant relied upon a decision of the Andhra  Pradesh High  Court in Kesarapalli Anjaneyulu and Another  v.  Eluru Municipality, by its Executive Officer, The Commissioner and Another(1), where the question arose as to whether a portion of choultry, which is used for shops, can be brought  within the  purview  of section 83 (1) (b) of this very  Act.   The High  Court held that the clause is attracted only to  cases where  rent  is charged in regard to a building  used  as  a choultry  i.e.  where  rent is collected  from  persons  who temporarily occupy (1)  (1964) 1. L. R. Andhra Pradesh (Part IV) 379.  301 tile  rooms, such as pilgrims and travellers, and it has  no application  to  cases where the building is not used  as  a choultry.   It is not possible to find from the  very  short judgment  in this case as to the entire  circumstances  with regard  to  the connection of the shops with  the  choultry. The  decision is, therefore, not of much assistance  to  the appellant and We express no opinion on its correctness. The  next decision cited by the appellant is in the case  of Sri Kanyakaparameswari Anna Satram (supra). In this case ten buildings  that  were  involved in the  suit  were  situated outside the choultry building.  It was alleged in the plaint that these ten buildings were rented and the income realised therefrom was used and applied for maintaining the choultry. The  High Court held that "the exemption is only  to  choul- tries and if a building does not satisfy the definition of a choultry, it is not entitled to the exemption.  Any building or  house  property  acquireed  by  the  plaintiff-committee cannot be called a choultry, and if the  plaintiff-committee should  acquire  a cinema-house and appropriate  the  income therefrom  for  the charitable purpose", it cannot  be  said that the cinema-house is a choultry.  The High Court  relied

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

upon  two decisions. If the Madras High Court in  Kodandaram Pillai  v.  The  Municipal Council,  Trichinopoly,  (1)  and Pandarasannadhi, Tiruvannarnalai Adhinam v. The  Corporation of Madras(2).  The facts of this case are entirely different from  those  of the present case where  shops,  offices  and other  concerns  are  intended  to  provide  facilities  and amenities to pilgrims and travellers staying in the choultry without  there  being  any motive of profit-making  and  are therefore part of the choultry.  The appellant also relied upon Municipal Council, Palni  v. Sri  Dhandayuthapani  Devasthanam Palni(3), where  the  High Court  was  dealing  with the words "places  set  apart  for public  worship  and  either actually so used  or  used  for another  purpose"  under section 83(1) (a) of the  Act  with which we are not concerned.  The decision is, therefore,  of no  assistance to the appellant.  The appellant also  relied upon Rajahmundry Municipal Council v. Tripurari  Malloya(4). The High Court on the particular facts and circumstances  of the case held :                     "If the property is a choultry when  the               tax  accrues  due,  then  the  tax  cannot  be               levied.  If it is not a choultry on that date,               being used for other purposes, then the tax is               leviable even though in the Past the  property               had  been  a choultry and  might,  become  one               again in the future’.               This  decision  is  also,  therefore,  of   no               assistance to the appellant.               At any rate, we have looked at the matter from               an entirely different angle and have come  to,               the  conclusion  that section 83  (1)  (b)  is               attracted  in  this  case.   The  appeal   is,               therefore, dismissed and the plaintiff’s  suit               is  decreed  as held by the  High  Court.   We               will,  however, make no order as to  costs  in               this appeal. S.C. Appeal dismissed. (1) A. I. R. 1933 Madras 782  (1933) 65 M. L. J. 678. (2) A. I. R. 1941 Madras 908(1941) 2 M. L. J. 544. (3) A. I. R. 1941 Madras 185. (4) A. I. R. 1938 Madras 923. 7-1.954SupCI /74 302