1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 Civil Appeal No.  8349 OF  2017  

W. N. Allal Sundaram                             …Appellant                             

                              Versus  

The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. Admn. Department & Ors.           …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

1 This appeal arises from a judgment dated 27 October 2006 of a learned  

Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The original plaintiff is in

2    

appeal, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court reversing the judgment and  

decree of the First Assistant Judge of the City Civil Court at Madras.  

2 The appellant instituted OS no 5916 of 1990 before the City Civil Court at  

Madras seeking two reliefs:  

(i) The setting aside of an order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu  

Religious and Charitable Endowments 1  Administration Department on  

21 March 1990; and  

(ii) A declaration that the Bagyammal Trust is not a „specific endowment‟  

falling under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and  

Charitable  Endowments Act 1959 2 .  

3 The case of the appellant is that the trust in respect of Sri Swamiya  

Dhamodara Perumal Temple is not a public trust. The Deputy Commissioner, HR  

and CE Administration Department issued a notice stating that the Bagyammal Trust  

is a public trust. The appellant claimed that the plaint schedule property had been  

settled in favour of Bagyammal 3  by her predecessors under a Deed of Settlement in  

pursuance of which she was in possession and enjoyment of the property between  

1928 and 1959. Bagyammal is alleged to have executed a Deed of Settlement in  

favour of Raju Chettiar. On his death in 1954, it was alleged that his wife  

Jagathambal succeeded to the property as his sole heir. Jagathambal is alleged to  

                                                           1  “HR and CE”  

2  “Act of 1959”  

3  The High Court uses the word „Pakkiyammal‟. However, the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June 1926 marked as   

Exhibit-A1 uses the expression  „Bagyammal‟. For the sake of convenience, this Court in the present judgment is  using the term „Bagyammal‟.    

3    

have settled the property in favour of her son-in-law W S Natarajan Chettiar. He is  

stated to have taken over possession of the property and to have been in control  

until his death in 1968. The appellant, as his son, claims to have succeeded to the   

property.  

4 The case of the appellant is that the trust which was created by Bagyammal is  

a private family trust which would not attract the provisions of the Act of 1959. A  

proceeding 4  was instituted under Section 63(a) before the Deputy Commissioner,  

HR and CE Administration Department seeking a declaration to that effect. On 3  

October 1986, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the proceeding. On 21 March  

1990, an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by  

the first respondent. This led to the institution of a suit by the appellant under  

Section 70(1). On 27 October 1995, the Trial Judge decreed the suit.   

5 In appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the judgment  

of the Trial Court on 27 October 2006. A Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on  

the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 100(A) of the Code of Civil  

Procedure 1908.   

6 A Special Leave Petition was instituted before this Court under Article 136 of  

the Constitution in order to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge.  

Leave was granted on 4 May 2017.  

7 Chapter V of which Section 63 is a part, contains provisions relating to  

enquiries. Section 63 is in the following terms:  

                                                           4  OA 12 of 1984

4    

“63.  5 [Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner] to decide  

certain disputes and matters  

Subject to the rights of suit or appeal hereinafter  

provided,  6 [the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy  

Commissioner, as the case may be], shall have power to  

inquire into and decide the following disputes and  

matters:—   

(a) whether an institution is religious institution;  

(b) whether a trustee holds or held office as a hereditary  

trustee;  

(c) whether any property or money is a religious endowment;  

(d) whether any property or money is a specific  

endowment;  

(e) whether any person is entitled, by custom or otherwise, to  

any honour, emolument or perquisite in any religious  

institution; and what the established usage of a religious  

institution is in regard to any other matter;  

(f) whether any institution or endowment is wholly or partly of  

a religious or secular character; and whether any property or  

money has been given wholly or partly for religious or secular  

uses; and  

(g) where any property or money has been given for the  

support of an institution which is partly of a religious and  

partly of a secular character, or the performance of any  

service or charity connected with such an institution or the  

performance of a charity which is partly of a religious and  

partly of a secular character or where any property or money  

given is appropriated partly to religious and partly to secular  

uses, as to what portion of such property or money shall be  

allocated to religious uses.”                      (Emphasis supplied)  

8 Section 63 provides that the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner  

shall have power to inquire into and decide disputes of the nature specified in  

clauses (a) to (g). Among them, in clause (d) is whether any property is a specific  

                                                           5  Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995    

6  Substituted by Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1995   

5    

endowment. Section 69 provides for an appeal to the Commissioner against the  

order of the Joint or Deputy Commissioner. Section 70 provides for the institution of  

a suit by a party aggrieved by an order passed by the Commissioner in appeal, and  

relating inter alia to any of the matters specified in Section 63.   

9 In the present case, the controversy turns on whether the original Deed of  

Settlement dated 4 June 1926 was in the nature of a „specific endowment‟ within the  

meaning of Section 63(d). The term „specific endowment‟ is defined by Section 6(19)  

in the following terms:  

“(19) “specific endowment” means any property or money  

endowed for the performance of any specific service or  

charity in a math or temple, or for the performance of any  

other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the  

nature described in Explanation (1) to clause (17).   

Explanation (1). — Two or more endowments of the nature  

specified in this clause, the administration of which is vested  

in a common trustee, or which are managed under a common  

scheme settled or deemed to have been settled under this  

Act, shall be construed as a single specific endowment for the  

purposes of this Act.  

Explanation (2). — Where a specific endowment attached to  

a math or temple is situated partly within the State and partly  

outside the State, control shall be exercised in accordance  

with the provisions of this Act over the part of the specific  

endowment situated within the State.”  

The expressions „religious charity‟ and „religious endowment‟ are defined in clauses  

(16) and (17) of Section 6 in the following terms:  

“(16) “religious charity” means a public charity associated with  

a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character,  

whether it be connected with a math or temple or not;  

6    

(17)“religious endowment” or “endowment” means all property  

belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or  

temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any  

service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of  

any other religious charity; and includes the institution  

concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not  

include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the  

archaka, service-holder or other employee of a religious  

institution;   

Explanation (1).— Any inam granted to an archaka, service-  

holder or other employee of a religious institution for the  

performance of any service or charity in or connected with a  

religious institution shall not be deemed to be a personal gift  

to the archaka, service-holder or employee, but shall be  

deemed to be a religious endowment.  

Explanation (2).— All property which belonged to, or was  

given or endowed for the support of a religious institution, or  

which was given or endowed for the performance of any  

service or charity of a public nature connected therewith or of  

any other religious charity shall be deemed to be a “religious  

endowment” or endowment” within the meaning of this  

definition, notwithstanding that, before or after the date of the  

commencement of this Act, the religious institution has  

ceased to exist or ceased to be used as a place of religious  

worship or instruction or the service or charity has ceased to  

be performed:   

Provided that this Explanation shall not be deemed to apply in  

respect of any property which vested in any person before the  

30th September 1951, by the operation of the law of  

limitation.”  

10 The dispute in the present case involves an interpretation of the Deed of  

Settlement dated 4 June 1926. The document was marked as Exhibit-A1. It was  

executed in favour of Bagyammal by the trustees of the Sree Agastheeswara  

Swamiya Devasthanam Temple. In 1921, the Trustees conveyed a plot of land in

7    

favour of Mangadu Ellappa Chettiar for the setting up of a choultry 7  to facilitate the  

activities of the Devasthanam. The choultry was found to be inadequate to meet the  

requirements of the devotees who came to attend religious festivals. Hence,  

considering the need to develop the temple and for the convenience of the  

devotees, it was found that the construction of another choultry had become  

necessary. The Trustees agreed to hand over possession of the property to  

Bagyammal. Insofar as material, the Deed of Settlement provides thus:   

“Witnesseth that a ground plot was given in possession to  

Mangadu Ellappa Chettiyar residing at House No. 4,  

Moottaikaran Street, Muthialpet, Chennai Pattinam in the year  

1921, and a big choultry having the constructed and  

relating to the Sacred activities of the Devasthanam  

being done properly and since the said choultry does not  

contain sufficient space to receive big crowd attending  

the festivals during the months of Aadi, and considering  

the development of the temple and since we thought that  

construction of another choultry had become necessary  

and on our request made to K. Kandasamy Chettiar at the  

village of Thiruvottiyr. He, with the help of his daughter  

along with Bagyammal [sic] w/o Late. Thirupathi  

Narayana Samy Chettiar had agreed to construct the  

choultry, and therefore according to the  

boundaries mentioned in the schedule below, all the four of  

us have unanimously and in writing have agreed to  

handover possession of the said property to the said  

Ammal and there is no right or interest either for us or  

our generation in future on the said property of land  

being taken in possession by above said Bagyammal and  

she can construct the free choultry by forming  

Silasasanam and she shall maintain the same till her life  

time and afterwards make provision permanently for the  

heirs and agents to be appointed and shall maintained  

the same, the above said shall be utilized at all times for  

the use of the public.  It should not be let out for rent.  No  

                                                           7  Choultry has been defined as: "A hall, shed, or supported roof, used as a resting-place for travellers, and for public  

business." C. Fennell (Ed.), The Stanford Dictionary of Anglicised Words and Phrases. Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press (1892).  Choultry has also been defined as “A public lodging place, a shelter for travellers”. Wilson‟s Glossary of Judicial and  Revenue Terms, London W.H. Allen,   2

nd  Edition, p. 108.  

8    

right shall be claimed by her on this choultry.  The  

boundaries for the said choultry shall be ascertained by the  

heirs and agents appointed by Bagyammal. Even if tax arises  

for the said choultry it shall be dealt with by the parties of  

Bagyammal only. In the above choultry…  Hindu Pilgrims  

shall be allowed to stay for three days for performance of  

marriage and other auspicious function and one day, two  

days and three days for Devasthanam purposes for  

Bagyammal and her parties and at their own desire, may  

be utilized the place for auspicious functions. No place  

should be given for persons to misuse or commit unclean at  

acts. The heirs or agents shall not execute any mortgage,  

sale etc relating to the said choultry and the ground plot.”  

        (Emphasis supplied)  

11 The issue before the High Court was whether the above settlement  

constituted a specific endowment within the meaning of Section 6(19) of the Act of  

1959. The High Court held that the recitals in Exhibit-A1 indicated that Bagyammal  

was entrusted with the suit property only to construct an additional choultry to  

accommodate the devotees of Sree Agastheeswara Swamiyar Devasthanam  

Temple. The Deed of Settlement indicated that the public would be entitled to use  

the choultry. Bagyammal was restrained from creating any encumbrance on the  

property. In the view of the High Court:  

“Here also under Ex. A.1 Pakkiyammal was given only a  

right to construct an additional choultry in the suit  

property and there was endowment created by dedicating  

the same to the use of the public particularly to those  

devotees who throng the temple during Thai and Adi  

festivals. Since the Choultry, which is in existence could not  

accommodate them the trustee who wrote Ex. A.1 had felt  

that an additional choultry is absolutely necessary to  

accommodate the devotees who visit the temple during the  

months of Thai and Adi. Pakkiyammal was given a right of  

maintenance of the above said choultry and she was not  

given any right to neither use the choultry for more than three

9    

days or to get any income from out of the above said choultry.  

It has further been specifically stated in Ex. B.1 that only out  

of her own income Pakkiyammal has to maintain the above  

said choultry. So, the above said dedication of choultry  

to the public under Ex. A.1 is only an endowment which  

will attract the provision contemplated under Section  

63(a) of the HR & CE Act.”        (Emphasis supplied)  

The High Court held that the endowment was for a specific purpose:   

“Under Ex. A.1 there is a specific endowment to the effect that  

the choultry to be constructed by the Pakkiyammal is to be  

endowed for the purpose of public use.”    

12 Shri S Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel assailed the judgment of the High  

Court and submitted that there was no specific endowment by the Deed of  

Settlement of 4 June 1926 within the meaning of that Section 6(19). In assessing the  

correctness of the submission, it is necessary to analyse the definition of the  

expression „specific endowment‟ in Section 6(19). A specific endowment is defined  

to mean:  

(i)  Any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific  

service in a math or temple; or   

(ii)  Any property or money endowed for the performance of any charity in a  

math or temple; or   

(iii)  Any property or money endowed for the performance of any other  

religious charity.  

10    

13 The expression „religious charity‟ is defined to mean a public charity  

associated with Hindu festivals or observances of a religious character, whether or  

not it is connected to a temple or math. Explaining  the expression „religious charity‟,  

Justice J C Shah, speaking for a three judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner,  

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v Narayana Ayyangar 8   

held:  

“4…Clause (13) of Section 6 defines “religious charity” as  

meaning “a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or  

observance of a religious character, whether it be connected  

with a math or temple or not”. The definition prescribes two  

conditions which go to constitute a religious charity: there  

must be a public charity and that charity must be associated  

with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. If  

these be fulfilled, a public charity will be a religious charity,  

even if it is not connected with a math or temple.”  

14 In a recent three judge Bench decision of this Court in M J Thulasiraman v  

Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Admn 9 , this Court while dealing with  

interpretation of a stone inscription to determine whether the nature of the institution  

called „Bakers Choultry‟ amounted to specific endowment under the Tamil Nadu  

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, held thus:   

“14. In the present case, the rock inscription in the “Bakers  

Choultry”, which governs the functioning of the choultry,  

provides for the feeding of Brahmins. This is clearly a charity  

which benefits the “public”, in line with the holding of the  

aforementioned Constitution Bench decision of this Court.  

                                                           8  (1965) 3 SCR 168  

9  (2019) 8 SCC 689

11    

...  

16. As such, the public charity described in the rock  

inscription, being associated with a religious festival,  

constitutes a religious charity as defined under the Act.  

17. As already mentioned above, under Section 6(19) of  

the Act, the definition of “specific endowment” includes  

any money that has been endowed for the performance  

of a religious charity. Following our holding that the rock  

inscription provides for a religious charity, it is sufficient  

to show that money has been endowed for the  

performance of the same for it to constitute a specific  

endowment under the Act.  

18. While the word “endow”, and the connected word  

“endowment”, have actually not been defined under the Act,  

from their usage in the Act and judgments on the subject, it is  

clear that they relate to the idea of giving, bequeathing or  

dedicating something, whether property or otherwise, for  

some purpose. In the context of the Act, the purpose is with  

respect to religion or charity. [See P. Ramanatha Aiyar: The  

Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., p. 634, 635; Pratapsinghji N.  

Desai v. Charity Commr. [Pratapsinghji N. Desai v. Charity  

Commr., 1987 Supp SCC 714] , para 8]. In the present case,  

the rock inscription clearly provides for the utilisation of  

money from the “Bakers Choultry” for the purposes of  

performing the charitable activity of feeding Brahmins  

during the specified religious festivals. As such, it is  

clear that the rock inscription creates a “specific  

endowment” as specified under Section 6(19) of the Act,  

which falls within the ambit of the Act.  

...  

23. In the facts of the present appeal, the contents of the rock  

inscription are sufficient for us to hold that there has been a  

valid divestment and to reject the contention of the counsel  

for the appellants. The rock inscription clearly indicates that  

the choultry is to be managed by the community of bakers,  

who will use the balance funds for the benefit of others.  

Further, the inscription also states that the managers do  

not have any power of alienation with respect to the  

choultry. In the present appeal therefore, as in M.R. Goda  

Rao Sahib [M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. State of Madras, AIR  

1966 SC 653] , there has been a clear divestment of the right  

to receive a certain part of the income, with the inscription

12    

also stipulating a bar on the right of the manager to  

transfer the choultry.”      (Emphasis supplied)  

15 In the present case, it emerges from the Deed of Settlement dated 4 June  

1926 that the trustees initially settled a plot of land for the construction of a choultry  

in 1921. The choultry which was in connection with the activities of the  

Devasthanam was found to be inadequate to meet the requirements of the devotees  

during religious festivals. Consequently, on 4 June 1926, a Deed of Settlement was  

executed under which Bagyammal was entrusted with the construction of an  

additional choultry. The choultry was to be specifically utilised for the purpose of  

extending facilities to pilgrims who visited the Devasthanam. There was a restraint  

on the creation of an encumbrance either on the choultry or on the land. The  

choultry was to be utilised at all times for the use of the general public. No right  

could be claimed by Bagyammal on the choultry. The choultry was to be maintained  

by Bagyammal, her descendants or her nominees. In view of the clear terms  

emerging from the deed, the definition of the expression „specific endowment‟ in  

Section 6(19) is attracted. The purpose of the Act of 1959  is to consolidate the law  

relating to the administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable  

institutions and endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu. The property was endowed  

specifically for the performance of a religious charity in the temple and was covered  

within the scope of definition of „specific endowment‟ in Section 6(19).   

16 The learned Trial Judge was evidently in error in coming to the conclusion  

that there was an absence of a „specific endowment‟ within the meaning of Section

13    

6(19). The High Court was entirely correct in reversing the judgment of the Trial  

Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal.   

17 The  appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.   

.……......................................................J                      [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]          

.……......................................................J  

                   [Ajay Rastogi]  

New Delhi;  November 22, 2019.