LexNANDURI YOGANANDA LAKSHMINARASIMACHARI AND ORS. versus SRI AGASTHESWARASW AMI VARU OF KOLAKALUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
]anuat'y Ij. 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] NANDURIYOGANANDA LAKSHMINARASIMACHARI AND ORS. v. SRI AGASTHESW ARASW AMI V ARU OF KOL AKAL UR (J. L. KAPUR. P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Grant-Inam-Intention-Spccified charitable payments exhaus- ting income at date of grant~Intention is to denote tfJhole income to charity-Plaint-Prayer portion-If and when can be allowed to be amended-Documents-The interpretation possible-Supreme Conrt not to intervene with view taken by the courts below. · The sole trustee of a deity in a suit prayed for a decree for the recovery of the arrears of income of a property alleging that the property in dispute constituted a specified endowment for Kalyanotsavam of the deity and the appellants who were trustees of the said property had committed defanlt in carrying out the purpose of the trust; but there was no formal prayer for the declaration that the said properties and income thereof formed a specific endowment for the said due performance of the services of Kalyanotsovam of the deity and feeding charges, and other expenses. The defence raised was that Inam was a personal grant bnrdened with service of the deity and that it was not a specific trust or an endowment for the benefit of the idol. The High Conrt after allowing the respondents to amend the plaint by adding a formal prayer for declaration stating that the properties and income thereof formed a specific endowment for the dne performance of the services of Kalyanotsavam of the deity held in favour of the respondents and further; observed that the appel- lants were liable to pay the_ entire income to the deity. On appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended for the appellants inter alia (r) that the grant was a personal grant, burdened with the provision for service and it was not a specific grant. (2) that High Court should not have allowed the amendment of the plaint. Held, that in the instant case the grant, was a specific endowment for Kalyanotsavam of the deity and therefore a specific trust and not a grant to the appellants with the added obligation of spending on the service. In considering the question of the nature of a grant, the inam registers have always been treated as evidence of the utmost importance particularly where Sanad & Inam title deeds are not produced, and when two inferences are possible from the reading of documents there is no reason why the Supreme Court will interfere with the view taken by the courts below. When at the time of a grant the specific charitable payments exhaust the income of the prpperty, it is a fair inference to draw ' - J S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 769 therefrom that the intention was to devote the whole income to 19fio charity and any subsequent increase in the value of the property accrues to the charity and the courts would be right to apply the Nanduri doctrine of Cy-pres. Yogananda Held, further, that where necessary allegations had been Lakshin1narasima- made in a plaint and the requisite pleas raised and issues framed chari and Ors. on the question and the parties were fully cognizant on the points v. in controversy and necessary evidence led by them, the courts Sri would be right in allowing the amendment by the addition of a Agastheswaraswami • prayer in the prayer clause, which was in the nature of formal Varu of Kolakalur relief which flowed from the allegation in the plaint. CIVIL APPEL.ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1956. AppeaJ from the judgment and decree dated August 7, HJ52, mf the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 809 of 194 7;arising out of the judgment and decree dated October 31, 1947, of the Sub Judge, Tenali in 0. S. No. 64 of 1944. K. R. Chaudri, T. S. Venkataraman and K. R. Sharma, for the appellants. N. Subramanyam and T. Satyanarayana for the respondent. 1960. January 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras varying the · decree of the trial court. The appellants were the defendants in the trial court and the respondent was the plaintiff who was represented by the sole trustee appointed by the Hindu Religious li:ndowment Board. The suit was brought by the deity through the sole trustee for recovery of Rs. 3,480 towards the arrears of income of the property in trust for the years 1942-44 and for a direction for future payment at the rate of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.