LexSAPPANI MOHAMED MOHIDEEN & ANR. versus R. V. SETHUSUBRAMANIA PILLAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
594 SAPPANI MOHAMED MOHIDEEN & ANR. v. · R. V. SETHUSUBRAMANIA PILLAI & ORS. Decemba 1, 1973 [S.N. DWIVEQT, Y. V. C!iANDRACHUD AND P.K. GOSWAMr, JJ.) Religious Endowmeut-WMther absolute_ or partial-Tests for dnermillin: In J 882 tn:re was a partition of ancestral properties amongst 5 b means of a 'partition deed Three of the 5 brothers took the properties rothe_rs by jn the relevant schedules for enjoyment severally, and certain propcrric, '!'nt,kned for enjoym:nt in cOmmon. Two brothers K and V were enjoying ihe·cre tPt jointly. CJ•us.e 1 of the deed eJtcli!ded from. partitio~ the properties 5~~fi~''' certain cbuses. One of the clal;lscs ts cl: 8 wht_ch dcscnbes certain charity P ' 1" and provides that the properttes mentaoncd tn the 8th schedule and allo= charity shall b:~dministe~~d ~y K. Clause 9 makes a special provision in conncctio~ wilb three rel,g,ous chartttes tn rclahon to a temple. The clause mentions that a sum of Rs 451· had been sp:nt annually for these three purposes, that arranaement had b!en m1de for contribution of sums amounting 10 Rs 13/· by three brother; that the dry hnds m:ntjoned in the 9th schedule shall be administered by K and from out of the incom~ of the said properties :.nd from out or their own fund$ K lind V aha II p:rfomt the aforesaid charilies by spending the balance of Rs 32.'· without fail. The prop~rty m:ntioned in ct. 9 was not e1tcluded from partition. AI tbe time or I he plrtition the in rome from I he property in the 9th s.:hcdule wos in fact not ~ullicient to m~el the exp:nscs of the three charilies dirce1cd to be per. formed. The property having b:en afienaled, the re,pondenrs filed a suit for a decluation thll th:re w" an ab3olute endnwment of. the property for the perfor. mance of the religious charities and tmtt the alienation was ;n,., lid. The trial Court decreed the suit. ·The Orst appcllale Court held that there ~~~• no abso!ute dedication and the High Coull, in second appeal, restored tbc dcrnc of the tnal Court. Allowin& the appeal to this Court c D HELD :Whether an endowment is a~olute or parlin I, primuilY depends on ~U lertm of the grant. If there is an e~press endowmcnl, there is Ito dJ.ll'tcuJry, ~u .,.. there is only an implied endowment, the intention haa to be eathcred on thej'~ ~~d tion of the docwnent as a whole. If the. word~ of lhc docuroentnre c • ;mbi· unambiguou~. the que~tinn or interpretation would not arue. If there b':ch;nte tuity, the iatentjon of the founden has to be carefullY gathered [;'m ~~ dcahnll f a~d lancuage of the 11rant. Even surrounding circumstances,'" seq usngtof the wnh the property, !he conduct of the partie• to the document a odd .'on I appropriate rrop~ny and Olhcr relevant factors may have 10 be comtdcrc •0 00 r;a'IC. 16070-FJ •L iltriaf prOvisiCOS In th:pre~entca$e, it is clear from the tcrnu ofcl. 9~U~d ouoerm the 11rrplcOr or I he deed that there wa1 no absolute endowment of the pr~pc~t~ ::; chor8r of per· a lr':'\t, The pro~ny, how~r. islmpre•scd with the oblt~at,c . din the man~tcr fvr!lllllg the religious chariliesmentioncd incl.9 of the _PiiiitUODddr the obli~atton G tnd1cated therein. The alienalion is therefore. not anvahd on . to p:rform the charity fo!low1 the property. (607P-G; c.oaA-CI 1 and 8 It schc~t• t (1) While cl. 8 recites th.:at '!he propcrtle• menlioned in the. 1 land m•ntlon· alla/Jrd fordu,lti~uhall be administered by K'. cl. Y recites 1hal d'krcncc In cf, 9 ed itt tlu 9th S~!!:dulc 1h11J be adroini\tered by K.' There Is 00 rc thattheWI•I was 'a/lullec/J'or charity', (602DJ ''"'"' he pcrforn J I I (lJ If the pro\l:ny Wl\ abiolutely dedicated lo the temple forct be•" ~cf~3 te i ofth: r;IJ'lt<IUl ~ tUttlos the illtelltion o( I he (oundeTrs w·ould Ita~ 0 of a doctl~r lhe.•ncom.e from the property being lillie or notlting. A conslruct•~dcd. 'fO J1 01uo wh•cll W·)ul4 (ru>lrlltc lito Intention of I he fouttdcrl should, be avo the prcscoll sw.~h lntcn!lllllllt the tlm• whCf.l the docwnent came into cKtste'!~p] ot or p:c..~~ntlnc:am: rrom, the property js jrrcle\·ant. (602U-uv -..; . :- _:;. .4 c 0 E f c • It I ' , sAPPAN! V, R. V. S. PILLAI (Goswami, 1.) S&5 . b:Cluse of the obligation to keep alive the 3 charities that the proo rt (3} n;l~otted to the tc~p~e, but was allotted to K and V, so that they m•/'5~ was not pcnse out of 1ts ,ncome some day. [602G-HJ · some rceom Th present case is far from a case where the e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.