THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS versus SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 16-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT i,EPORTS 
1005 
existed in the other parts of Rajasthan. This difference 
between the two parts did not justify that such pro-
gressive and ameliorative measures for the welfare of 
the people existing in a particular area should be done 
away with and the State be brought down to the level 
of the unprogressive States. 
The judgment shows that 
the 
Bench far from going back on its previous view 
adhered 
to 
it and expressly 
distinguished 
the case 
under appeal before us on its special facts. 
As a result 
of the foregoing discussion 
we hold 
that the view taken by the High Court is correct. We 
accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : 
R. H. Dhebar. 
THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS 
ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS 
ti. 
SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SW AMIAR 
OF SRI SHIRUR MUTT. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, GHULAM HASAN, 
BHAGW~TI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
Constitution 
of India, 
arts. 19(1)(f), 25, 
26, 27-Madras 
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras Act 
XIX of 1951), ss. 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56 and 63 to 69, 76--Whether 
ultra vires the Constitution-Work "property" in art 19(1) (f) 
meaning of-Tax and fee, meaning of-Distinction bet1vcen. 
Held, that ss. 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56 and 63 to 69 of the Madras 
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Madras 
Act XIX of 1951) are ultra vires arts. 19(\)(f), 25 and 26 of the 
Constitution cf India. 
Section 76( I) of the Act is void as the provision relating to tlie 
payment of annual contribution contained in it is a tax and not a 
fee and so it was beyond the legislative competence of the Madras 
Sta~c Legislature to enact such a provision. 
That on the facts of the present case the imposition under 
s. 76( I) of the Act, although it is a tax, does not come within the 
hitter part of art. 27 because the t>bject of the contribution under 
the section is not the fostering or preservation of the Hindu reli· 
gion or any denomination under it but the proper administration 
ot rc.li<i;iam. tnms and institutions wherever they exist. 
1954 
TheStateof 
RaJasthan 
v. 
Rao Manohcr 
Sinthji. 
Ghulam Hasan] •. 
• 
1954 
March 16. 
1954 
Thi C•mmis4 
siomr, Hindu 
&ligiow Endow 4 
mmts, Madras 
v. 
Sri Lakshmindra 
7 hirtha Swamiar 
of Sri Shirur 
Mutt. 
• 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
The word "property" as used in art. 19( 1) ( f) of the Constitu-
tion should be given a liberal and wide connotation and should be 
extended to all well-recognized types of interest \vhich have the 
insignia or characteristics of proprietary right. 
The ingredients of both office and property, of duties anJ per-
sonal interest are biended together in the rights of a Mahant and 
the Mahant has the right to enjoy this property or beneficial 
interest so long as he is entitled to hold his office. Therefore he is 
entitled to claim the protection of art. 19(1)(£). 
A tax is a con1pulsory exaction of money by public authority 
for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payn1ent 
for~ 
services renderc:d . 
It is not possible to formulate a definition of fc:c: that can 
apply to all cases as there are various kinds of fees. But a fc:e 1nay 
generally be defined as a charge for a special service rendered to 
individuals by so111e governn1ental agency. 
1"'hc: 
an1ount of fee 
levied is supposed to be based on the expenses incurred by the 
Govern1nent in rendering the service, though in inany cases such 
expenses are arbitrarily assessed. 
"The distinction between a tax and a fee lies prirnarily 
in 
the: fact that a tax is levied as part of a comn1on burden, while: a 
fee is a payn1ent for a special benefit or privilege." 
Scope of arls. 25 an<l 26 <lisi..:ussed. 
Meaning 
of 
the 
tern1 
"Mathadhipati" 
and 
"religion" 
explained. 
Vidya Varuthi v. Balusami ( 48 I.A. 302), Monahar v. Rhupen-
dm {60 Cal. 452), Ganesh v. Lal Behary (63 I.A. 448), /!habatarini 
v. Ashalata (70 I.A. 57), Angurbala v. Debabrata ((1951] S.C.R. 1125), 
Davis v. Benson (133 U.S. 333), The State of West Bengal v. Subodh 
Gopal Rose (Civil Appeal No. 107 of 1952 decided by the Supreme 
Court on the 17th December, 1953), Adelaide Company v. The Com-
monwealth ( 67 C.L.R. 116, 127), Minersville School Dutrict, Board 
of Education etc. v. Gobitis (310 U.S. 586), West Virginia State 
Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624), Murdock v. Pennsyl-
vania (319 U.S. 105), /ones v. Opelika (316 U.

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