LexSAHASW ATHI AMMAL AND ANOTHER versus RAJAGOPAL AMMAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...... S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'f REPORTS SAHASW ATHI AMMAL AND ANOTHER v. H,AJAGOPAL AMMAL. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA and JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.] 277 Hind1t law-Religious endowments-Dedication for worship nt tomb-Validity-Public policy. A perpetual endowment of properties for the pnrpose of samadhi kainkaryain, i.e., worship of and at the samadhi (tomb) of a person, is not valid under Hindu law. To the extent that any purpose is claimed to be a valid one for perpetual dedication on the ground of religious merit though lacking in public benefit, it must be shown to have a Shastraic basis so far as Hindus are concerned. The heads of religious pur- poses determined by belief in acquisition of religious merit cannot • be allowed to be widely enlarged consistently with public policy and needs of modern society. K1mha1nittty v. T. Ahmad, JJJ.usaliar and Others (I.L.R. 58 Mad. 204), A. Dravias1tndarar1; Pillai v. N. S1tbrahmanya Pillai (I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 854), Velnswami Goundan v. Da1idapani ( [1946] 1 M:.L.J. 354) approved. 1\1. K. A. Rarncmathan Ohettiar v. Vada Levvai ]forakayar and Others (I.L.R. 34 l\Iad. 12) and Board of Commissioners for Religions Endowments v. Pid1igu Narasimham 'and Others ( [1939J 1 M.L.J. 134) distinguished. Fatma Bibi v. Advocate-General of Bombay and Another (I.L.R. 6 Bori:t. 42), Dwaraka1iath Bysack cmd Another v. Burroda Persaud Bysack (I.L.R. 4 Cal. 443), Rnpct Jagashet v. Krishnaji (I.L.R. 9 Bom. 169) and Pcirthasarathi v. Tir1tvc-ngcida Pillai and Others (I.L.R. 30 l\Iad. 340) referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 15th day of July, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rajamannar C. J. and AyyarJ.) in Appeals Nos. 625 of 1945 in 0. S. No. 35 of 1944 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly. · R. Ganapathy Iyer and K. Vaitheeswaran for the appellants. Rarnachandra Iyer for the respondent. 1953. October 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHA DAS J. 1953 Oct. 20. 1953 Saraswathi Ammal and Another v. Rajagopal Ammal. J agannadhadas .T. 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i954j JAGANNADHADAS J.-This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are daughters of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai. The 2nd defendant is the husband of the 1st defendant. Kanakasabapathi was a self-made man and built up a flourishing motor bus service and also acquired sub- stantial properties, movable and immovable. He died on the 24th August, 1942, without any male issue and left him surviving a widow, Gomathi Ammal, and two daughters, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. His widow continued the motor service and managed the other properties with the help of the 2nd defendant as her manager and died on the 7th March, 1940. The 1st defendant and her husband were throughout living with her mother. On her mother's death they both got into possession of all the properties including the motor service. The plaintiff accordingly brought the present suit originally as one for administration but later amended it as one for partition and separate possession of her half share in the properties. Both the courts below have decreed partition with ancillary reliefs. There are some minor variations in the decree of the High Court from that of the Subordinate Judge, details of which it is not necessary to notice. The defendants are the appellants before us. Shortly before her death, the widow, Gomathi Ammal, executed two documents both on the same day, namely the 4th November, 1940, (1) a sale deed by which she conveyed the entire bus service as a going concern to the 2nd defendant for consideration of Rs. 80,0QO (vide Exhibit D-6); and (2) a settlement deed by which she dedicated some immovable proper- ties worth about Rs. 27,000, for the performance of certain services purporting to be of a religious and charitable character (vide Exhibit D-8). The main dis- pute between the parties was as to the validity of these two deeds, apart from certain minor contest as to whether some of the suit properties were part of Kanakasabapathi's estate and liable for partition. As regards the sale deed (Exhibit D-6) both the courts below have concurrently found that it was executed for grossly inadequate consideration and brought about ... S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 279 by undue influence and fraud of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.