http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: PT.  RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHREE MAHADEOJI, MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALIKANPUR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/10/1969

BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  458            1970 SCR  (2) 809  1969 SCC  (3) 700

ACT: Hindu  Law-Property dedicated for promotion of the sport  of wrestling whether constitutes a valid trust under Hindu Law- Such property along with other property acquired under  Land Acquisition    Act,   1894-Compromise    during    reference proceedings-Endowed property purchased by manager and  price adjusted against total compensation-Whether on such purchase property loses its character as trust property.

HEADNOTE: One Mani Ram, a wrestler, owned certain properties including a  groveland.  In the groveland  he maintained an Akhara  or wrestling ground.  He spent the income from the groveland as well as his other income for the promotion of wrestling.  On the  archgate  of  the  Akhara  was  installed  an  idol  of mahabirji  and  over a small room nearby a Shiv  Lingam  was installed.   In order to attract Muslim wrestlers a  tasweer of  Hazrat Ali was also placed in the Akhara.  In 1830  Mani Ram partitioned his properties.  He took a one eighth  share including  the said groveland for himself and wife.  In  the partition  deed the said groveland was described as a  wakf. After  Mani Ram’s death his wife entered into possession  of his  property and continued to maintain the A khara  out  of the  income  of  the groveland.  In 1862  she  made  a  will wherein  she  described the groveland having the  Asthan  of Mahabirji  and  Mahadeoji as having been  dedicated  by  her husband.  She enjoined her son Mangli Prasad to continue  to maintain  the Akhara ’as heretofore,’ and empowered  him  to appoint   his  successors  in  management  from  among   the descendants  of  Mani Ram.  Mangli Prasad was  succeeded  in management by his widow.  After the later’s death there  was litigation  between her legate and Mangli Prasad’s  daughter Sheodei  Kaur.   The Court declared the said  groveland  and Akhara to be endowed property and held that Sheodei Kaur was entitled to the possession thereof as manager.  The property came  into  the  possession of Ishwar  Narain,  the  son  of Sheodei Kaur, in 1906.  He built a cinema house on a part of the  said  groveland in 1914-15.  In  1937  the  Improvement Trust  of Kanpur acquired the groveland, the  structures  on it,  as  well  as the surrounding  property.   In  reference

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

proceedings regarding compensation a compromise was  arrived at  whereby the Improvement Trust agreed to sell  to  ishwar Narain the portion of the acquired property corresponding to the  endowed property along with the structures thereon  for Rs.  25,000  which  amount was adjusted  against  the  total compensation  payable to him for the acquired property.   On Ishwar  Narain’s  death  in  1948  the  property  which  was described in his will as his personal property passed to his sister’s  sons who were enjoined to maintain the Akhara  and the  Asthan.   The  respondents through  their  next  friend instituted  a suit in which they challenged the  bequest  on the  ground  that the Akhara and the  groveland  constituted trust property.  The trial court held that the possession of the property in question by Mani Ram and his successors  was that  of  managers  or trustees, it further  held  that  the dedication  was in favour of the Manager or trustee for  the maintenance  of  the Akhara.  The High Court held  that  the dedication  was  in  favour  of the  idols  of  Mahabir  and Mahadeoji.  In appeal to this Court by certificate the  main question for consideration was whether there was 810 a valid trust under Hindu law in favour of the  respondents. The appellant also urged that what was dedicated was not the groveland  but  the grove, and that after  the  purchase  by Ishwarlal  of the groveland and the structures thereon  from the  Improvement  Trust  that property could  no  longer  be treated as a trust. HELD : (i) (a) The documents on record as also the  evidence as  to  the  conduct  of Mani Ram and  those  who  held  the property  after him clearly showed that Mani  Ram  dedicated the  groveland and not merely the trees  standing  thereon. [816 C] (b)  The  purchase  of part of the said property  after  its acquisition  was  from out of the compensation  received  by Ishwar  Narain and not out of his personal funds so that  if the trust was in law a valid one, the property purchased  by him  out of the trust funds would he stamped with the  trust and  he  would in that event be holding that property  as  a trustee or manager and no as an owner. [816 D] (ii) However the trust could not in the present case be held to a valid one under Hindu law. [822 B-C] A  dedication of property for a religious, or  a  charitable purpose can, according to Hindu law, be validly made  orally and  no Writing is necessary to create an  endowment  extent when it is created by a will.  An appropriation of  property for specific religious or charitable purposes is all that is necessary  for  a  valid  dedication.   Hindu  piety   found expression  in gifts to idols to religious institutions  and for all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu  social and  religious system.  There is no line of  demarcation  in the Hindu system between religion and chairity : gifts  both (or  religious  and charitable purposes are impaled  by  the desire  to acquire religious merit.  They may take the  form of  Istha  (sacrifices  and  sacrificial  gifts)  or   Purta (charities  such  as maintenance of  temples,  tanks,  wells etc.). But the terms Istha and Purta themselves are  elastic and  admit of no rigid definition.  As times  advanced  more and  more categories of acts considered to be beneficial  to the  public  would be recognize depending on the  needs  and beliefs of the time. [819 C-G, 820 B-C] But  there  is  nothing- to show that  the  promotion  of  a particular game either for entertainment of the public or as encouragement  to  those who take part in it has  ever  been reconised  as  a charitable trust according It)  Hindu  law. Neither Pandit Prannath Saraswati, nor mukherjea, nor  Maynt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

suggests in his treatise that a dedication for the promotion of   particular  game or sport is a charitable  trust  under Hindu law. [820 F-G] The  English  law  of  trusts as found  in  the  Statute  of Elizabeth  or the law relating to Superstitious Uses is  not applicable  to India.  But even in English cases  dedication for  promotion of games, except as a part of education,  his not been treated as a charitable trust. [820 H; 821 E] As  held  by  this  Court in  Saraswathi  Ammal’s  case,  in determining  the validity of a trust under Hindu law  it  is the dominant purpose of the turst which is relevant. In  the present case the purpose of installing the two idols and the tasweer  clearly  was to enable the wrestlers to  pay  their homage  and  salutations to the patron deities of  the  game before  entering into the wrestling arena. On the  facts  it must be held that the dominant object of the dedication  was the Akhara and the said idols and the tasweer were installed only  to  attract  persons of both the  communities  to  the Akhara  and  to  provide for them  there  the  facility  for invoking the divine benediction before they participated  in wrestling [818 E-G] 811 That being the position it was impossible, in the absence of any authority textual or by way of a president, to hold that the  dedication  in question was for either a  religious  or charitable purpose recognised by, Hindu law. [822 B-C] The appeal must accordingly be allowed. Saraswathi  Ammal & Apr. v.  Rajagopal Ammal, [1954]  S.C.R. 277,  Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v. Duddukuru  Subba  Rao, [1957]  S.C.R. 1122 at 1128 and " Vidyavaruthi  v.  Balusami Ayyar, ( 1921 ) 48 I.A. 302 at 311, relied on. Commissioners  for  special  Purposes of  the  Income-tax  v Pemsel, [1891] A.C. 581 at 583 In  Notage, Jones v.  Palmer, [1895]  Ch.  649,  In re Hadden Public   Trustee  v.,  More, [1931] 1 Ch. 133, In re Marietta, Marietta v. Governing Body of  Aldenham School, [1915] 2 Ch. 284, In re Daley v.  Lloys Bank  Ltd.  [1945] 114 L.J Ch 1, Trustees  of  the   Tribune press  v. Commissioner of income-tax I.L.R. [1945] Bom.  153 and  cricket Association , Bengal v. Commissioner of  Income tax, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 296. referred to.). Mayne’s Hindu Law 11th Ed. p. 192, mukherjea’s Hindu law and Religious  and  Charitable Trust 2nd Ed.p.  11,  and  Pandit Prannath  Sarasvati’s Hindu Law of Endowments 1897, pp.  26- 27. relied on.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1393 of 1967. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1965  of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 187 of 1957. C.   B.  Agarwala,  Ravinder Bana. and O. P. Rana,  for  the appellant. J. P. Goyal and P. N. Tiwari,  for respondent No. 1 (1). Yogeshwar Prasad and M, Veeraappa, for respondent No. 1 (11) The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed  against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated August 5, 1965 and related to a piece of land together  with buildings thereupon including an Akhara (Wrestling  ground). The  property  is  situate in Kanpur and  bears  at  present Municipal No. 26/72, its original No. being 26/30. Sometime prior to 1830, one Mani Ram, well-known during  his life-time  as a wrestler, purchased a groveland  with  trees standing  thereon. Whether he pruchased one  such  groveland

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

and  divided it into two, or pruchased tow  such  grovelands and  amalgamated them into one is not quite  certain.  Along with this land he was possessed of other properties adjacent to  the  said  groveland. It appears that  being  himself  a wrestler and fond of that sport Mani Ram pruchased the  said groveland for setting up and main- 812 taining  an Akhara where wrestlers of both Hindu and  Muslim communities  could come for wrestling.  Besides  the  income from  the said groveland, Mani Ram spent large  amounts  for promoting  wrestling  and  to  that end  made  a  number  of disciples. He had by his first wife six sons and a seventh son, Mangali Prasad,  a wrestler of repute, from his second  wife,  Rahas Kaur.  By a deed of partition dated June 23, 1830 he divided all  his  properties into eight shares giving one  share  to each  of  his  seven sons and retained  the  8th  share  for himself  and the said Rahas Kaur.  This 8th  share  included the  said groveland on which stood the said Akhara  as  also certain other structures.  The Akhara ground was bounded  by a compound wall with an archgate to enter into.   It appears that with the object of attracting wrestlers he installed on the  archgate  an idol of Mahabirji, a Shiv  Lingam  over  a small room which stood next to the said gate, and a  tasweer of Hazrat Ali.  The two idols and the Tasweer were obviously intended  to give a religious bias to the Akhara, the  first two  to  attract Hindu wrestlers and the  third  to  attract Muslim  wrestlers.  The said deed of partition  stated  with regard  to the said 1/8th share and the said groveland  that none  of his seven sons would have any interest or right  in them as the "one eight (1/8th) share and the grove, which is a  waqf property and which 1, the executant, have taken  for myself the executant and my second wedded- wife shall remain owner thereof till our life time." It would thus appear that even  before  1830 Mani Ram had already dedicated  the  said groveland  for the purposes of the said Akhara and that  was why  he referred to it as waqf property.  Mani  Ram  managed the said groveland in the aforesaid manner using the  income thereof for the said Akhara.  On his death the property came under the management of his widow, the said Rahas Kaur.   On May 12, 1862 Rahas Kaur made a will in which after  reciting the partition deed of 1830 she stated as follows :               "He  (Mani Ram) dedicated two  grooves-situate               in  Philkhana  Bazar,  which  has  Asthan   of               Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and Taswir of               Hazrat  Ali-The Akhara and Asthan-up  to  this               day are continuing as theretofore, and  Mangli               Prasad, my son, is unparalleled in  wrestling.               In  order  that it may continue I  execute  a               will that (paper torn) shall be spent over  it               as  mentioned in the will of my husband.   The               Akhara   and   Asthan   shall   continue    as               heretofore." The will then provided that the management of the Akhara and the  Asthan should remain with Mangli Prasad and  authorised Mangli Prasad to appoint managers after him from the  issues of  Mani  Ram  and thus the management  should  go  on  from generation to generation. 813 From  a deed of lease dated June 28, 1862, executed  by  one Mst.  Tejia, it appears that the said groveland was given on lease to her at the annual rent of Rs. 23 by Mangli  Prasad. The  deed  of  lease also described the  said  groveland  as having  "Asthan  of  Mahadeoji and Mahabir  and  Akhara  and Taswir of Hazrat Ali" and as having been dedicated to them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

In  1862, one Bansgopal filed suit No. 490 of  1862  against Mangli  Prasad and others for partition and for 1/3rd  share in  the  said  groveland.  Mangli  Prasad  filed  a  written statement therein explaining how the groveland was purchased by  Mani  Ram  from  out of his own funds  and  how  he  had dedicated it and referred to (be said partition between Mani Ram  and his sons.  He also described how after  Mani  Ram’s death in 1849, the property was administered first by  Rahas Kaur  and after her death under the directions of  her  said will by him.  Mangli Prasad in this written statement denied that the plaintiff in that suit had any right or interest in the  said groveland, the same having been dedicated by  Mani Ram for the purposes aforesaid. It appears that after Mangli Prasad’s death his widow, Janki Kaur,  entered into possession of the said  property.   From the  judgment  in First Appeal No. 279 of 1901 of  the  High Court  of Allahabad dated December 23, 1903 it would  appear that  Janki Kaur left a will in favour of one  Kishan  Sarup and  on  the latter claiming the  property  Mangli  Prasad’s daughter.   Sheodai Kaur, filed a suit for a declaration  of her right of possession to the said property.  That judgment has  some  bearing on the question as to the nature  of  the property  in  this  appeal as it  clearly  stated  that  the groveland  in  question was an endowed  property,  and  that herefore,  Sbeodei  Kaur could not claim  that  property  by inheritance,  but was entitled to the possession thereof  as the manager since Mangli Prasad had not appointed any one as such manager.  By this judgment the High Court declared that "as  regards the two, grovelands and Akhara-we declare  that the  plaintiff  is entitled to be the manager  of  the  said property".   From  the  description in  the  decree  of  the property declared by the High Court as the endowed  property there can remain no room for doubt that the endowed property consisted  of the two grovelands and the enclosure known  as Buag-Akhara. The property came into possession of Ishwar Narain, the  son of  the said Sheodei Kaur, in 1906.  In 1914 he applied  to the Kanpur Municipality for permission to build a theatre in a part of the Buag-Akhara and in September 1915 he  executed a  mortgage to secure repayment of a loan of Rs. 6,000/-  he had  borrowed  to, complete the said  theatre.   Though  the Akhara and the Asthan continued to be maintained by him,  it appears that he treated the 814 endowed property as belonging to him.  In or about 1937  the Improvement  Trust  of  Kanpur acquired  the  whole  of  the property  which consisted of the said two grovelands,  Buag- Akhara and the structures standing thereon and the  property lying  outside and around them.  The award of the  Collector dated  February 19, 1937 shows that for the entire  property compensation was calculated at Rs. 94,934/-.  Ishwar Narain, thereafter,  filed  a  reference under S.  18  of  the  Land Acquisition  Act.  Pending the reference, a  compromise  was entered  into  between  the Improvement  Trust  ,and  Ishwar Narain  under  which  in consideration  of  the  latter  not pressina the reference the Improvement Trust agreed to  sell to In the portion corresponding to the said endowed property for  Rs. 25,000/-.  In accordance with this compromise,  the said  land  together with the Akhara, the Asthan,  the  said theatre and certain other structures were conveyed to Ishwar Narain  who  was  paid Rs. 94,934/-  less  Rs.  25,000/-  as compensation for the rest of the acquired property.   Ishwar Narain died in 1948 having prior thereto made his will dated November 11, 1947 claiming therein that on the death of  his mother.  the  said Sheodei Kaur he had become  the  absolute

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

owner of the said property and bequeathed the said property to Balaji and Ram Chandra, the sons of his sister,  Narayani Devi,  with directions to them to maintain the  said  Akhara and the Asthana. The  principal question which was agitated before the  Trial Court  was as to the existence of a valid  trust  and  the nature  of possession of Mani Ram during his life  time  and his  successors  thereafter.   To the  latter  part  of  the questions the answer of the Trial Court was that  possession of  the property In question by Mani Ram and those who  came into possession after him was that of managers or  trustees. As to the first part of the question, the Trial Court held               "The  next  part  of the issue  is  about  the               endowment being valid-It is true that Mani Ram               Pande  was not competent to make a  dedication               in favour of Hazrat Ali but he had not done so               in this case.  The various documents  referred               above  do  not prove that the  dedication  was               made in favour of Hazrat Ali or even Mahadeoji               and   Mahabirji.    Wherever   there   is   an               allegation  of the dedication it is  mentioned               that  the  Ahata in question  is  a  dedicated               property and there are "Asthana" of Mahaclevji               and Taswir of Hazrat Ali and also an  Akhara.               It  means that the dedication was not made  in               favour of any juristic person such as  Mahadev               Ji  or  Mahabir Ji or even to  the  Akhara  or               Hazrat Ali.  No dedication evolve in favour of               A  khara could have been made as the  A  khara               was also not a juristic person.  The intention               of Mani               815               Ram Pande, as appears from the partition deed,               Ex.  6, was that the dedication was in  favour               of a trustee or manager, the objects of  which               was to maintain the Akhara and the worshipping               of  Mahabirji and Hazrat Ali by the  wrestlers               of  the two communities, Hindus  and  Muslims.               The   main  purpose  of  dedication  was   the               maintenance of the Akhara which meant for  the               wrestlers of both the communities." In  this view the Trial Court decreed the suit and  directed the appellants to hand over possession and pay Rs.  23,000/- as mesne profits in addition to Rs. 1100 a month as  further mesne profits for the period pending the suit. In  appeal all against the judgment and decree of the  Trial Court, the High Court took the view that though there was no deed  of  dedication available, the evidence on  record  was clear that Mani Ram had dedicated the said property, that he and  those who succeeded him right upto Ishwar  Narain  held the  properties  as  trustees or  managers,  that  the  said judgment  of the High Court of Allahabad of 1903  also  held that  the said Sheodei Kuar was to hold the property in  the capacity  of a manager, and lastly, that the dedication  was in favour of the two idols of Shri Mahadeoji and  Mahabirji. In  this connection the High Court expressed itself  in  the following terms :               "It may be that establishing an A khara is not               a religious or a charitable purpose.  But this               was  not the only object of the trust  now  in               question.  There was an Asthan in addition  to               the  Akhara.  Dedication of property  for  the               benefit of an idol is recognized in Hindu  Law               as  a  religious  object.   Mr.  V.  P.  Misra               further  contended  that  Mani  Ram  was   not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

             competent to create a trust for the benefit of               Hazrat Ali.  On this point, the learned  Civil               Judge observed that Mani Ram was not competent               to  make  dedication in Hazrat  Ali’s  favour.               But  Hazrat Ali is not the sole  plaintiff  in               this  case.  Sri Mahabirji, Sri Mahadeoji  and               Hazrat   Ali  have  come  to  Court   as   co-               plaintiffs.  If the dedication in Hazrat Ali’s               favour  cannot be recognised, there should  be               no  difficulty in treating the endowment as  a               trust   for  the  benefit  of  Mahadeoji   and               Mahabirji.   The  decree passed by  the  Trial               Court  can  well  be treated as  a  decree  in               favour  of  Sri Mahadeoji  and  Sri  Mahabirji               only." In  disputing the correctness of the High  Court’s  judgment and  decree,  Dr.  Agarwala for the  appellants  raised  the following  contentions  :  (1) that  the  endowment  was  in respect  of the grove and not the groveland, i.e.,  only  of the income from the trees which 816 existed during Mani Ram’s life time; (2) that on acquisition of  the  entire property including the  Akhara-buag  by  the Improvement Trust, the trust, in any event, was extinguished and the purchase by Ishwar Narain after the acquisition from the  Improvement  Trust  did not and could  not  revive  the trust;  (3) that the trust was invalid by reason of  one  of its  objects being the image or tasweer of Hazrat  Ali;  and (4)  that the dominant object of the trust was to  establish and maintain in perpetuity the said Akhara, which object  in Hindu  Law is neither religious nor charitable, and  there- fore, the trust was not a valid trust. So  far  as  the  first  and  the  second  contentions   are concerned,  we  have no difficulty in rejecting  them.   The documents  on record as also the evidence as to the  conduct of  Mani  Ram  and those who held the  property after  him clearly  show that Mani Ram dedicated the groveland and  not merely the trees standing thereon.  The purchase of part  of the said property after its acquisition was from out of  the compensation  received by Ishwar Narain and not out  of  his personal  funds,  so that if the trust was in law  a valid one,  the property purchased by him out of the  trust  funds would  be stamped with the trust and he would in that  event be holding that property as a trustee or manager and not  as an owner. The question, therefore, on which the result of this  appeal would  turn  is whether the trust created by  Mani  Ram  and which  he  referred to in the said deed of partition  was  a valid  trust  recognised in Hindu law  as  religious  and/or charitable.  The principle of law applicable to trusts  made by  Hindus is succinctly stated by this Court in  Saraswathi Ammal  & Anr. v. Raiagopal Ammal-(1).  A Hindu  widow  there settled  certain  properties for the following  trusts,  (1) expenses in connection with the daily pooja of the,  samadhi where her husband’s body was entombed in accordance with his last wishes and the salary of the person conducting the said pooja; (2) Gurupooja and annadhanam to be performed annually at the samadhi on the anniversary day of his death; and  (3) any balance leftover after meeting the above expenses to  be spent for matters connected with education.  The  contention was that though the first object was not a religious object, the  performance of Gurupooja and the feeding at the  annual shradha  and  the utilisation of the balance,  if  any,  for educational  purposes were the main destination  of  income, and  therefore, the main object of the settlement  and  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

accordingly  the dedication was valid.  This contention  was negatived  and  it was held that  notwithstanding  that  the major  portion  of  the  income may have  to  be  spent  for Gurupooja  and  annadhanam  in connection  with  the  annual shradha,  the  dominant purpose of the  dedication  was  the samadhi kainkarivam, (1)  [1954] S.C.R. 277.                             817 i.e.,  the  worship  of and at the tomb.   The  validity  or otherwise of the dedication, therefore, had to be determined on that footing and not as though it was dedication for  the performance of the annual shradha on a substantial scale  or for  annadhanam as such.  It was held that it did  not  make any  difference  that  the surplus was to  be  utilised  for educational   purposes.    That  surplus   was   contingent, indefinite   as  well  as  dependent  on  the   uncontrolled discretion of the manager as to the scale on which he  chose to  perform  the  services at  the  samadhi.   The  dominant purpose of the settlement thus being the pooja of and at the samadhi, the validity of the settlement had to be decided on that  footing, namely, whether such trust was recognised  in Hindu  law.  On that question the Court relied on a  passage from  Mayne’s  Hindu  Law,  ( 1th  ed.)  at  p.  192,  which states,that  what  are purely religious  purposes  and  what religious  purposes  will  be charitable  must  be  entirely decided according to Hindu law and Hindu notions.  The Court observed  that in finding out such purposes, the  insistence of  English law on the element of actual or  assumed  public benefit  would not be the determining factor, but the  Hindu notions of what a religious or a charitable purpose is.  The Court  further held that to the extent that any  purpose  is claimed  to be a valid one for perpetual dedication  on  the ground of religious merit though lacking in public  benefit, it must be shown to have a Shastraic basis so far as  Hindus are concerned.  To the argument that new religious practices and  beliefs  may  have since then  grown  up  and  obtained recognition,  the  Court  answered that if they  are  to  be accepted as being sufficient for valid perpetual  dedication they  should have obtained wide recognition and  constituted the  religious  practice of a substantially large  class  of persons and that the heads of religious purposes  determined by  belief  in  acquisition of  religious  merit  cannot  be allowed  to  be  widely enlarged  consistently  with  public policy and the needs of modern society.  In the result,  the Court  confirmed the High Court’s view that  the  settlement was invalid. There being no deed of endowment, the intention of Mapi  Ram in  settling the property in question has to be  principally gathered  from the said deed of partition and the said  will of Rahas Kaur, the rest of the documents executed by  Mangli Prasad   and  others  being  useful  only  in  aid  of   the interpretation of that deed of partition and the said  will. There  can  be no doubt whatsoever that Mani Ram,  being  an eminent wrestler and fond of that game, purchased out of his own  money the said groveland for the purpose of setting  up an  Akhara thereon.  The question then would be  whether  he settled that property upon trust, and if so, for what trust. As  already  seen, Mani Ram recorded in the  said  partition deed  the fact of his having partitioned the  property  into eight shares, 818 his  having  given one share to each of his seven  sons  and having retained the eighth share for himself and his  second wife  and  the said groveland as waqf property.   The  deed, however, does not set out the purpose or purposes for  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

the  said groveland was regarded ’by him as  waqf  property. But  it does show that he regarded that property as  already dedicated.   The  purposes for Which the  groveland  was  so dedicated  are to be found in the said will of  Rahas  Kaur, wherein  she  has in clear terms stated that  Mani  Ram  had dedicated  the groveland "which has Asin of Mahadeo  Ji  and Mahabir Ji and Aklhara and tasweer of Hazrat All", that  the Akhara  and  the Asthan were upto that dale  maintained  and that  they  should continue as heretofore.   The  will  thus provides  a key to. the mind of Mani Ram who, as  aforesaid, hall purchased the said property and set up thereon the said wrestling  arena.  Obviously, he was anxious that  wrestlers of  both  Hindu and MUSlim Communities should take  part  in that  Akhara.   It  is  equally  obvious  that  to   attract wrestlers  from both ,lie communities he installed  in  that Akhara the tasweer of Hazrat Ali an the idols of Shr Mahadeo and  Mahabir,  the two patron deities  of  wrestling.   Once these idols were put up in the Akhara, their worship had  to be provided for, it is well-known amongst Hindus that it  is irreligious  to let such idols remain unworshipped.   It  is not  possible to know from the evidence as to  where  Hazrat Ali’s  taswreei,  was installed, but it is  clear  from  the evidence that the idol of Mahabir Ji was located at the  top of  the  aggregate which led into the Akhara and  the  Shiva Lingam  was  installed over a small room built next  to  the gate.  Clearly, the purpose of- installing the two idols and the tasweer was to enable the wrestlers to pay their  homage and  salutation  to the patron deities of  the  game  before entering  into the wrestling arena.  The dominant object  of the  dedication  was thus the Akhara and the Asthan  of  God Shiva and Mahavir, spoken of in the will of Rahas Kaur,  was only an adjunct to the Akhara.  There is evidence, no doubt, to  show  that  pooja and Shringar of  the  two  idols  were performed.   But that apparently was because the idols  once installed  could not be left unworshippe On these  facts  we are  inclined to take the view that the dominant  object  of the  dedication  was the Akhara and the said idols  and  the tasweer  were installed only to attract persons of both  the communities  to  the  Akhara and to  provide  for  them  the facility  for  invoking the divine benediction  before  they participated  in  wresting.   As  laid  down  in  Saraswathi Ammal’s case(1), it is on this foot in that the validity  or otherwise of the trust has to be considered. It must be made clear at very outset that although the  will of  Rahas Kaur provided that persons who are to  manage  the trust  were  to  be in the first instance  her  son,  Mangli Prasad, and later (1)  [1954] S.C.R. 277. 819 on  those appointed by him from amongst the issues  of  Mani Ram,  the  trust was obviously not a private  but  a  public trust in the sense that it was for the benefit of those, who are  devoted  to  the sport  of  wrestling  irrespective  of whether they are Hindus or Muslims.  But the contention  was that in spite of the trust being a public trust, it was  not one recognised by Hindu law as being a religious and / or  a charitable one.  As stated earlier, the fact that the Akhara idols installed in it makes no difference as the  dedication was the Akhara and not the or the tasweer of Hazrat Ali. A  dedication  of property for a religious or  a  charitable purpose can according Hindu law, be validly made orally  and no to create an endowment except where it is (cf.   Menakuru Dasaratharami  Reddi v. Duddukuru Subba Rao(1).  It  can  be made by a gift inter vivo or by a bequest or by a ceremonial or   relinquishment.   An  appropriation  of  property   for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

specific  religious  or charitable purposes is all  that  is necessary  for a valid dedication.  As stated by  the  Privy Council in Vidyavaruthi v. Balusami Ayyar(2), a trust in the sense in which it is understood in English law is unknown in the Hindu system.  Hindu piety found expression in gifts  to idols,  to  religious  institutions  and  for  all  purposes considered  meritorious  in the Hindu social  and  religious system.  Therefore, although Courts in India have for a long time adopted the technical meaning of charitable trusts  and charitable purposes which the Courts in England have  placed upon  the  term ’charity’ in the Statute of  Elizabeth,  and therefore,  all purposes which according to English law  are charitable  will  be charitable under Hindu law,  the  Hindu concept of charity is so comprehensive that there are  other purposes  in  addition which are  recognised  as  charitable purposes.   Hence,  what are purely religious  purposes  and what religious purposes will be charitable purposes must  be decided according to Hindu notions and Hindu law. As  observed  by Mukherjea in Hindu Law  and  Religious  and Charitable  Trust  (2nd  ed.), p. 11, there is  no  line  of demarcation  in  the  Hindu  system  between  religion   and charity.   Indeed, charity is regarded as part of  religion, for,  gift  both for religious and charitable  purposes  are impelled   by  the  desire  to  acquire   religious   merit. According to Pandit Prannath Saraswati these fell under  two heads,  Istha  and Purta.  The former meant  sacrifices  and sacrificial gifts and the latter meant charities.  Among the Istha acts are Vedic sacrifices, gifts to the priests at the time  of such sacrifices, preservations of Vedas,  religious austerity, rectitude, Vaisvadev sacrifices and  hospitality. Among  the, Purta acts are construction and  maintenance  of temples,  tanks,  wells,  planting of  ground  had  the  two dominant  object  of worship of the idols  A  dedication  of pose can, according writing is necessary created by a will. (1) [1957] S.C.R. 1122 at 1128, (2) (1921) (48) I.A. 302 at 311. L5Sup.CI-7 820 groves,  gifts  of food, dharamshalas, places  for  drinking water,  relief of the sick, and promotion of  education  and learning.  (cf.   Pandit Prannath Saraswati’s Hindu  Law  of Endowments,  1897, pp. 26-27) Istha and Purta are  in  fact regarded as the common duties of the twice born class.  (cf. Pandit Saraswati, p. 27) Though  Pandit Saraswati sought to enumerate from  different texts Various acts which would fall under either of the  two Categories  of  Ishta  and  Purta,  no  exhaustive  list  of charitable  purposes  can  be possible  as  the  expressions ’Ishta’  and  ’Purta’ themselves are elastic  and  admit  no rigid   definition.   As  times  advance,  more   and   more categories of acts considered to be beneficial to the public would  be recognised depending on the needs and  beliefs  of the  time. (cf.  Mukherjea, p. 74).  Neither the Statute  of Elizabeth  nor  the Law relating to Superstitious  Uses  was applied  at  any time to India.  Consequently,  the  English decisions based on one or the other of these statutes  would not  be  applicable nor can they be  commensurate  with  the conditions prevailing in India, though those decisions might undoubtedly be of some guidance. Is  then  the  trust for the maintenance and  up-keep  of  a wrestling  ground  a valid charitable trust ?  The  evidence shows that Mani Ram, being personally fond of wrestling  had a number of disciples and attracted several wrestlers to the Akhara.   But that, according to Rahas Kaur’s will,  he  did out  of  his  own  love for this  particular  sport  and  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

spending  large  amounts out of his own  moneys.   The  only thing which seems to have been done by his successors was to hold wrestling tournaments and award prizes to the  success- fuloges  out of the income of the property and  to  maintain the Akhara.  It may be that people might have come to  these tournaments  and  even practised wrestling but there  is  no evidence  whatsoever  that  wrestling  was  taught  or   its knowledge  was  imparted to those wishing to  know  it.   At best,  therefore,  it can be said that  by  maintaining  the Akhara  and  holding therein the tournaments  wrestling  was sought  to be encouraged or fostered.  But there is  nothing to  show that the promotion of a particular game either  for entertainment of the public or as encouragement to those who take  part  in it has ever been recognised as  a  charitable trust  according  to  Hindu law.   Neither  Pandit  Prannath Saraswati, nor Mukherjea, nor Mayne suggests in his treatise that a dedication for the promotion of a particular game  or sport is a charitable trust under the Hindu law. In  Englalnd it is held not to be so, of course  within  the scope  of  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  as  interpreted   in Commissioners  for  Special Purposes of the  Income  Tax  v. Pemsel(l).   Thus, In re Notage, Jones v. Palmer(2), a  gift for encouraging the sport of (1) [1891] A.C.          (2) [1895] Ch. 649 821 yatch-racing was not upheld as a charitable trust, though as Lindley, L.J., remarked every healthy sport is good for  the nation.  In  re  Hadden, Public Trustee  v.  More(1),  while acknowledging  the principle laid down in In  re  Notage(2), the court held that a trust providing for recreation grounds and  parks for the benefit of working classes was  valid  on the  ground, however, that such uses were intended  for  the health and welfare of the working classes.  So too, in In re Marietta, Mariette v. Governing Body of Aldenham  School(3), where  bequests  for building squash racket courts  or  some similar  purpose within the school premises and for a  prize to the winner in the school athletics were held valid on the ground  of its being essential in a school of learning  that there  should  be  organised  games as  part  of  the  daily routine.  It is clear from the judgment of Eve, J., that  he upheld  the bequest on the ground not of promoting  athletic games  but on the ground that the object of the charity  was education  in  the school and that training  in  such  games would  be part of the educational activities of the  school. There is, however, one decision of a marginal nature. if  we may  say so, namely, in In re Daley v. Lloyds Bank  Ltd.(1), where a gift for holding an annual chess tournament  limited to boys and young men under the age of 21 years residing  in a particular locality was upheld. But that was done after  a good deal of hesitation and only by basing it on the  ground that  training  of  youth  in a game  of  skill  which  also required concentration was part of their education. Coming to the cases in India, the decisions in the  Trustees of  the Tribune Press v. Commissioner of Income-tax(5),  All India Spinners Association v. Commissioner of  Income-tax(6) and  the  Cricket  Association, Bengal  v.  Commissioner  of Income-tax, Calcutta(1) were all cases under s. 4(3) (i)  of the  Income-tax  Act,  1922  and  therefore  would  have  no relevance to the present case arising, under the Hindu Law. The decisions above referred to thus lay down a  distinction between  cases  where the object of the dedication  was  the promotion  of  games as part of the education of  those  who participate in them and cases where the object was promotion of games simplicitor, the former only having been upheld  on the  ground that such promotion or encouragement is part  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

the  educational  training and the latter  not  having  been upheld.   In  the case of  Cricket  Association,  Bengal(7), though arrangements of cricket tournaments of both  domestic and foreign teams were said to promote and foster love for a healthy game, s. 4(3) (i) was held not to be applicable. (1) [1932] (1) Ch. 133.      (2) [18951 Ch. 649. (3) [1915] (2) Ch. 284.      (4) (1945) 114 L.J. Ch. 1. (5) 661.A. 241.              (6) I.L.R. [1945] Bom. 153. (7)  A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 296. 822 On  a  reading of the relevant documents on record  and  the oral  testimony led by the parties we are not in a  position to agree with the High Court that the trust created by  Mani Ram was a religious trust in favour of the two idols of Lord Shiva and Mahabir Ji.  As aforesaid, our conclusion is  that the  dominant  intention of the settlor was to  set  up  and maintain  an Akhara, the said two idols as also the  tasweer of  Hazrat Ali having been installed there only  to  attract wrestlers of the two communities.  That being the  position, reluctant  though we are, particularly in view of  the  fact that  the  said  Akhara has been  maintained  for  nearly  a century, we find it extremely difficult, in the absence,  of any  authority,  textual or by way of a precedent,  to  hold that  the dedication in question was for either a  religious or  charitable purpose as recognised by Hindu Law.  For  the reasons aforesaid we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the High  Court. In  the circumstances of the case, however, we  consider  it just  that there should be no order as to costs.   Collector will be at liberty to recover the Court fees payable in  the plaint from the next friend of the plaintiffs. G.C.                Appeal allowed. 823