M. RADHAKRISHNA GADE RAO SAHIB versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 27-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
• 
F 
G 
• 
H 
643 
M. RADHAKRISHNA GADE RAO SAWB 
v. 
STATE OF MADRAS 
August 21, 1965 
[A. K. SARKAR, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment~Part of the income of 
properties set apart for charities-If specific Endowment. 
The appellants' predecessors by an instrument 
provided that out of 
the income of the propertie• a specified sum was to be set apart for certain 
charitie1, and the balance of the income was to be taken by the mem-
bers of the family. 
The 
Commissioner 
of 
Religious 
Endowments 
declared that part of the income set apart for charities, as a specific endow-
ment. 'Thereupon the appellant filed a swt under s. 62(11) of ~e Act 
for cancellation of this order. 
The Trial Court decreed the swt, but 
on appeal by the Commissioner the High Court, set 
aside the Trial 
Court's decree. In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : (By Full Court) A specific endowment was created by the 
instrument. 
Per Sarkar and Dayal, JJ. 
The proprietors had divested themselves 
of that part of the income to be spent on charities. 
By providing that 
their fobility to pay the amount would be a charge on the properties, 
the settlors emphasised that they were divesting themselves of the right 
to the income and the right to deal with the property as if it was 
unencumbered. 
By creating the charge they provided a security for the 
due performance by them of the liability they undertook. 
Further s. 32 
of the Act provides that where a specific endowment to a temple consists 
merely of a charge on property, the trustees of the temple might require 
the person in possession of the properties charged to pay the expenses in 
respect of which the charge was created. 
This section 
undoubtedly 
shows that the Act contemplates a charge as an endowment. [645 F-
646 Al 
It cannot be said that a charge would be an endowment only where 
it had first been created in favour of a person who made an endowment 
in respect of it, that i& to say, transferred his rights under the charge in 
favour of the charities. [ 646 BJ 
Per Ramaswami, J. In Hindu Law a dedication may be either abso-
lute or partial. In the former case, the property is given out and out 
to an idol or to a religious or charitable institution and the donor divests 
himself of all beneficial interest in the prope-rty comprised in the endow-
ment. 
When the dedication is partial, a charge is created on the pro-
perty or there is a trust to receive and apply a portion of the income 
for religious or charitable purposes. 
In 
such a 
case, 
the 
property 
descends and is alienable and l!artible in the 
ordinary way, the only 
difference being that it passes with the charge upon it. The expression 
"religious endowment" as defined in s. 6(14) and "specific endowment" 
as defined in s. 6( 16) of the Act must be construed so as to include both 
absolute and partial dedication of the property. 
This view is supported 
by s. 32(1) of the Act, which contemplates thrut "specific endowment" 
attached to a math or temple may consist merely of a charge on pro-
perty. (649 F-650 DJ 
ii44 
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS 
( 1966] I S.C.R.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 444 of 
A 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 26, 1958 
of the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit No. 3~5 of 1955. 
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for the appellant. 
A. Ranga11atllzam Clzetry and A. V. Ra11gam, for the respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of Sarkar and Raghubar Dayal JJ. was deliver-
ed by Sarkar J. Ramaswami, J. delivered a separate Opinion. 
Sarkar, J. On January 10, 1914, the appellant\ predeces-
sors-in-interest executed an instrument which has been described 
in these proceedings as a deed of settlement. 
There is some dis-
pute as to the interpretation of this instrument but this much is 
not in controversy that it provided that the properties set out in 
Schedule A to it would be responsible for meeting the expenses 
of the charities specified in Schedule B. 
Schedule B set out 17 
different charities and the amount to be spent on each. 
The 
total of the amounts mentioned came to Rs. 4,311 ·0-0 and the in-
strument provided that "in respect of the sum of Rs. 4,311-0-0 
which has been set apart for the expenses of the aforesaid dhar-
mams we have created a 'charge' on the entire properties mention-
ed in the A Schedule herein." That the properties were charged 
with the payment of the amount is not disputed. It is unneces

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