LexMUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRUPATHI versus TIRUMALAI TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
294 MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, TIRUPATHI v. TIRUMALAI TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAM February 6, 1974 [P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI. JJ.] Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920-S. 83(l)(b)-Wllt't.her Tiruma- ltd .Tirupathi Devasthana1n New Choultry is exempt front. property tax, The. plaintiff/respondent filed a suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, for a declaration that the building, known as ·~Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam New Choultfy'' is exempt from property tax u/s. 83(1)(b) .of the Madras A B District Municipalities Act, 1920 and for directing the defendant, the Muni- C cipal Council, Tirupathi, to refund the. sum of Rs. 22,306.40 paid under protest. According to the plaintiff, the said building is a free Devasthanam Cboul- try intended purely for the convenienee of the visiting pilgrims and therefore, exempt from property tax. The defendants' case is that while pilgrims are accommodated in the ground floor free of charge, the rooms in the first floor are rented out to pilgrims and __ others. Further, the plaintiff waS deriving a very large income from the various stalls and shops situated inside the premises D of the choultry and therefore not exempt from tax. The learned Sub-Judge dismissed the 90.it but on appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiff is Cntitled to exemption under s. 83 of the Act. S. 83(1) of the Act provides as follows :- ''The following building and lands shall be· exempt from the property tax :- (a) ...... (b) choultries for the occupation of which no rent is charged and choultries the rent charged for the occupation of which is used exclusively for charitable purposes;" Dismissing the appeal, HELD: (i) The word "choultry" is not' defined in the Act. the word however~ means a shelter or resting place for travellers. (Law Lexicn11 of British Tndia Co111.pilcd a11d edited by RiinUinatha Aiyar, 1940 Ed,) B F (ii) Chouiiry .is indeed an ancii;.nt institution and is principally meant for lodging of pilgnms and travellers. It is conceivable that in 1884,, when. the first Municipal Legislation was passed in Madras1 such institutions were some G hun1ble sheds; but in course of time, such institutions grew in size and more and more demands were made oI them for comfort and convenience Of the pilgrims. Therefore, it would be necessary to look at the institution from the point of view of the predominnnt intention which guides the building up of the complex as a whole.' · (iii) In the present case, the choultry cannot be divorced from the other offices, shi:>os and concerns which are mainly located within its precincts in H order to render much-needed services to the pilgrims. It is clear that lhe entir~ income is used exclusively for the purpose of the choultry which is indeed a charitable purpose. Therefore, the case f<i1ls squarely under sec. SI ( l)(b) and therefore exempt fron1 property tax. 8 MIJN!CIPAL COUNCIL v. ·T. T. DBVASTHANAM (Goswami,/.) 295·. Ktsarpalli A.ntaneyufu and another v. Eluru Mr111icipalily by its Executive- Offectr. Tire conunissioner a11d a1101f1er, [1964] I.L.R. Anctfua Pradesh (Part lV) 379, Sri Kayakaparameswari Anna Satranz. represented by the Secretary, ·Sri Bmchil Venkateswarlu v, The Vijayawada Municipalily, represented by its Ex«utit'e Officer. The Municipal Co1nmissioner [1959] 2 And.bra Weekly Re- porter, 325; Kandandarani Pillai v. The Municipal Council, Trichinopoly, [1933)" 65. M.W. 678 and Pandaras!lnnadhi, Tiruvan11amalai Adhinam v. The Corpo"4 rancn of Madras, [1941] 2 M.L.I. 544, rcfe~d to and distinguished. CmL APPEL'LATE JuR1sn1n10N : Civil Appeal No. 568 of 1969. From the judgment and decree dated. the 27th February, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No. 117 of 1963. J;.i M. Nattsan, K. Jayaram and R. Chandrasekheran, for the appellant Krishnarao, E. Kalyanaram and G. N. Rao, for the respondent. c D E F G H The Judgment of the. Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J.-This appeal by the defendent in the original •uit is by certificate grantect by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to appeal against the judgment and decree of the said Court of 27th February, ' 1968. The facts may briefly be stated. The respoqdent (hereinafter to be described as the plaintiff) is the Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanarn represented by its executive officer. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.