COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE versus RATNAVARMA HEGGADE (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 20-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-\ 
889 
COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE A 
ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE 
v. 
RATNAVARMA HEGGADE (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS. 
October 20, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
Hin~u Law-Religious Endowment-Hindu temple forming part of a Jain 
Instituion-When niay be treated as a Hindu religious endowment. 
Sectio1i 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 de-
fines 'temple' as a place, by whatever designation known, used as a pla~e cf 
public worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by 
the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. 
Section 9(11) provides that all property belonging to, or· given or endowed for 
the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity con-
nected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the premises of 
the temple. Section 2 provides that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious 
endowments. 
The Section, the Explamation to the section, and s. 3 (b) show 
that Hindu public religions endowments' do not include private endowments and 
Jain religious endowments. 
Dharmasthal, in which the temple in dispute was situate has a number of 
institutions which were under the management of a person known as Heggade, 
who was a Jain. The Religious Endowments Board, after an enquiry, held that 
the Act applied to the temple. On application made under s. 84(2), the District 
Judge held that it was a private temple, and that, therefore, the Act did not 
apply to it. On appeal, the High Court did not consider whether it was a pri-
vate temple, but held that the temple was an adjunct to the composite institu-
tion of Dharmasthal, that, according to the customs and usages of the institu-
tion, the temple could not be separated from the rest of the institutions, that 
Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that the deity in the 
temple was worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with 
their respective faiths, that the deity was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor 
an exclusively Jain deity, that the institution of Dharmasthal was founded by a 
Jain, that its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, that it 
could not be inferred that there was: an implied dedication to the Hmdus exclu-
sively, and, that therefore the temple' was not a temple as defined in the Act, and 
that the Act did not apply to it. The High Court also held that its property was 
also an adjunct to the composite institution consisting of Hindu Gods, Jain Gods 
and Daivas, worshipped by Hindus and Jains. 
Dismissing the '.i12Peal by special leave to this Court, 
HELD : (Per A. N. Ray, C.J., and P. N. Shinghal, J) 
• 
( 1) Section 9 ( 12) of the Act only requires that the temple should be dedi-
cated for public religous. worship, as of right by Hindus, but it would not detract 
from its character of a temple as such if Jains also worship there. 
The pro-
visions of the Act will however not be attracted to it in the absence of any 
evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it, as the Act applies only 
to Hindu public religious endowments. [899 H, 900 A] 
(2) The evidence in the case shows that the institution of Dbarmastbal was 
originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was en-
dowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It 
was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance ever 
the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and. Jain devote~s and 
worshirqiers. 
A lingam was installed in th.e ~mple by a Hu;idu Sanyas1 only 
in the 16th century; but, it bas not been estabhshed that there 1s any_ endowment 
which could be said to belong exclusively to the temple. 
Even 1f any such 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
endowment was made by some one in the name of the temple it was taken to :..e 
an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated 
as such. 
The temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu relgiom endow-
ment within the meanin.g of s. 2 and the provisions of the Act are not applio- · 
able to it. f896 F-H; 897 Al 
. 
(3) The evidence also shows that the temple is part and parcel of the com-
posite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with 
it that it is its integral part, and it cannot therefore be held to be an endowment 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.