THAYARAMMAL (DEAD) BY LR. versus KANAKAMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 06-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THAYARAMMAL (DEAD) BY LR. 
v. 
KANAKAMMAL AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2004 
B 
[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Hindus Law : 
Religious endowment-Property dedicated for public use as 
C Dharmachatram-A resting place for travelers and pilgrims-Donor 
indicating no administrator or manager-Held, such a dedication made by 
D 
a Hindu for religious or charitable purposes in strict sense is neither a 
gift nor a trust-Such a property is itself raised to the categ01y of juristic 
person. 
Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959: 
Ss. 6(5) and .(17)-Charitable and religious endowments -Owner 
dedicating his property for being used by public as Dharmachatram 
(Choultly)-No administrator or manager appointed-Held, High Court 
E rightly opined that the suit property which was a dedication for charitable 
purposes on neither be claimed by plaintiff as a trustee nor by defendant 
as owner-However, order of High Court modified to the effect that the 
suit property being a 'charitable endowment' would be taken in control 
for administration, management and maintenance by State Government and 
F the Commissioner invoking powers under the Act-Administrator Generals 
Act, 1963-0.fficial Trustees Act, 1913-S. JO. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Property dedicated for public use-Document of dedication being a 
G stone inscription-Evidentiary value of 
Suit properties were dedicated for being used by the public as 
'Dharmachatram', where travelers and pilgrims could take shelter and 
be provided with refreshment. The document of dedication was a stone 
H inscription of the year 1805 on the front wall of the property. The 
734 
THAYARAMMAL v.KANAKAMMAL 
735 
plaintiffs, who claimed themselves in occupation of a portion of the A 
property, filed a suit for eviction of the defendants from the other 
portion thereof contending that the latter had wrongly encroached upon 
it. The stand of the defendants was that they purchased the said portion 
in a court sale in execution ofa compromise decree in respect of the suit 
property. The trial court and the first appellate court partly decreed the 
suit and rejected the claim of the defendants holding that the compromise 
decree was collusive and the property being of a public trust, the 
defendants could claim no title thereto. In the second appeal filed by the 
defendants the High Court also rejected their claim. However, the High 
Court modified the decree holding that as the owner of the property did 
not appoint any trustees, the plaintiffs too could not claim any right to 
the property in the assumed status of a trustee; and directed that the 
Administrator General and the Official Trustee of Madras should take 
over the management of the property. Aggrieved, both the plaintiffs and 
the defendants field the present appeals. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
HELD : 1. The contents of the stone inscription, which is of the year 
1805 and has a presumptive evidentiary value under the Evidence Act, 
clearly indicate that the owner dedicated the property for use as 
'Dharmchartra' (Choultry) i.e. a resting place for the travellers and E 
pilgrims. Such a dedication by a Hindu for religious or charitable 
purposes, in the strict legal sense is neither a 'gift' nor a 'trust'. A 
religious endowment does not create title in anybody's favour in respect 
of the property dedicated. A property dedicated for religious or charitable 
purpose for which the owner of the property or the donor has indicated 
no Administrator or Manager becomes res nullius i.e. the belonging to 
nobody. Such a property is itself raised to the category of a juristic 
person. [741-D-E; 741-F-GJ 
Manohar Ganesh v. Lakhmiram, ILR 12 Bom. 247 and Krishna Singh 
v. Mathura Ahir, AIR (1972) All 273, referred to. 
B.K. Mukherjea on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 
fifth Edn. by AC Sen, referred to. 
2. The High Court was right in holding that the suit property which 
F 
G 
was a dedication for charitable purposes cannot be claimed by the H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A plaintiff as a trustee or the defendant as owner, but it failed to make a 
distinction between a 'trust' in strict legal sense and a 'religious or 
charitable endowment' as understood in customary Hindu Law. Section 
10 of the Official Trustees Act shows that it is applicable only in relation 
to a property subject to a trust for which there is no trustee available 
B within the local limits of the juris

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