LexKAKINADA ANNADANA SAMAJAM ETC. versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HYDERABAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
878 KA.KINA.DA ANNADA.NA SAMA.JAM ETC. v. ;COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HYDERABAD & ORS. December 2, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] Her~di·tGry trustee-Office of-If 'property' lvithin the n1ea11ing of A rt. 19· of the Constitution . A B . Andhra Pradesh Charitablt and Hindu Religi()f(S Institutions and En- C dowments Act (17 of 1966), ss. 15, 17, 27. 36 and 97-lf violarive of 1Art. · 19 of th.e Constitution. The appellants were hereditary trustees of religious and charitable institutions and endowments. · They claimed the right to manage and administer the secular estate of the ·institution or endowment of which tl.ey were hereditary trustees but never claimed proprietary or beneficial ·interest either in the corpus or in the usufruct of the estate. They cha!- D lenged the validity of s. 15 read with ss. 17, 27, 36 and 97 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, on the ground that they are violative of Art. 19 of the Con- stitution. The High Court held that the office of hereditary trustee was property but that the restrictions imposed by the various provisions of the Act are reasonable and are in the interests of the public. In appeal to this Cour.I, E HELD : ( 1) The position of a hereditary t'rustee wh<' claims a bare right to manage and administer the secular .estate, is the ·same as. that of a Dharmakarta or a mere manager 01 custodian of an in1titution except that the hereditary trustee 1ucceed1 to the office as of riaht :nd in accord"' ance with the ruin aovernin& 1ucce11lori. He' cannot be equated to a 1h1balt, ma•thadhlpathl or a mahant in whose case, I.he ln1redient1 of both office and property, of dutie1 and personal lntereit and rlght1 are 11 blended to~ether. Hence the office of iuch ~ hereditary trustee is not propelrty within the meaning of Art. 19. The observation in Sambuda· murthi Mudaliar v. State of Madro:i, [1970] 2 S.C.R. 424 that the office of a hereditary trustee is in the nature of proprety is obiter. The pro- nouncement of the Privy Council in Gnanasambanda /'andara Sannadhi v. Velu Pamlaram, 27 I.A. 69, Ganesh Chander Dhur v, Lal Behary Dhur, (1936) 71 M.L.J. 740 (P.C.) and Bhaba Tarini Debi v. Asha Lata Debi, I.LR. [1943] Z. Cal. 137 (P.C.) that the rule in the Tagore G case, (1872) 9 B.L.R. 377 applies to succes5ion of hereditary trustees does not afford any assistance in deciding whether an office holder; who has .a bai'e..lrikht of management, can claim ... to. have a right or intere·st in the nature of p\"operty .within the meaning of Art. 19( I) (fh [886 B-D; 887 F-H] Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Mahcraj v. State of Rajasthan [1964]: 1 S.C.R. 561 and Raja BiYakiihore v. Orissa, 11964) 7 S.C.R. 32, followed. H (2) Even if the right constituted property the restrictions which have been imposed by the provisions of the Act on the hereditary trustees are reasonable and are in the interest of 'lhe general public. [888 Bl K. >I.. SAMAJAM v. COMMR. H.R. & C.E. (Grover, J.) 879 A The statute has been enacted because, a high. powered body, namely the Hindu Religious Endowment Commission, had reported that there was mismanagement invariably of the endowment property by the trustees. The power to appoint non-he~editary trustees or executive officers under ss. 15 and 27, even where there is already a hereditary trustee or trustees, notwithstanding that there is no mismanagement, is only for the purpose of ensuring better and efficient administration and management of the institution or endowment. Under s. 17, the hereditary trustee is not B removed but is to be the chairman of the Board of Trustees, and if there are more than one hereditary trustee, one of them is to be chairman by rotation. Instead of managma the institution alon,e he has to adminis· ter it in collaboration with other trustees who .are non-hereditary; but it is only the secular aspect-and not matters of religion-that is touched. [883 D; 888 B-G] C [Questions whether some of the institutions were private or were religious denominations within Art.. 26, left open for determination by the appropriate forum.] [889 DJ D E F CIVIL APPELLATE JlJRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1249 to 1251, 1271, 1358, 1350, 1381, 1382, 1521, 1522, 1544, 1612, 1668, 1669, 1879, 1880, 1912, 197'3 and 1974 of 1970. Appeals from the judgment and order
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.