Hindu Endowments-1

HINDU ENDOWMENTS
SUBMITTED TO: PREPARED BY:

DR. GHULAM YAZDANI GURPREET KAUR
LLM IST YEAR
IIND SEMESTER
20147678
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A Project work on a topic with such complications is a tedious task and

hence doing a project on such a theme requires guidance by the subject
teacher. The enlightening experience provided me by my teacher Dr.
Ghulam Yazdani who proved to be the guiding source to complete this
project work. I owe sincere gratitude for her untiring and constant academic
and intellectual support and guidance. It is my great pleasure & privilege to
have been associated with her, who gave me encouraging guidance and
discussed various aspects of my project work. I am highly grateful and
indebted to her and owe my sincere gratitude to her.
GURPREET KAUR
2
INDEX
1. Introduction………………………………………………………….4
1.1 Ishta and Purta……………………………………………….4
1.2 Charitable Trust……………………………………..……….5
1.3 Public and Private Endowments……………………………..9
2. Valid Religious Endowments……………………………..………..12
3. Maths………………………………………………………………..13
4. Charitable Endowments…………………………………………….14
5. Bequest to DHARMA………………………………………………16
6. Gifts void for Uncertainity………………………………………….16
7. Dedication – How Effected………………………………………....17
8. Religious Ceremonies not Necessary……………………………….18
9. No Trust Required…………………………………………………..19
10. Dedication May be absolute or Partial……………………………...21
11. Proof of Dedication…………………………………………………23
12. IDOL, a Juridical Person…………………………………………... 26
13. Female Manager…………………………………………………….29
14. Position of Manager of a temple/Dharamkarta/ Shebait……………29
15. Right to Offerings…………………………………………………..31
16. Borrowing and alienations for necessity……………………………33
17. Benefit of the Estate………………………………………………...34
18. Permanent leases Invalid……………………………………………35
19. Alienation by one of several trustees……………………………….36
20. Obligations of Manager…………………………………………….36
21. Position of an Asthal and the head of the Math…………………… 37
22. Limitation for suit…………………………………………………..40
23. To set aside alienations……………………………………………..40
24. To recover property………………………………………………...40
25. Setting aside of alienation………………………………………….42
26. Burden of Proof…………………………………………………….43
27. Creditors remedies for unsecured loans……………………………43
28. Decrees against Managers and Heads……………………………...44
29. Devolution of Mahant’s Office…………………………………….45
30. Chela not an Adopted Son…………………………………………46
31. Devolution of Managership………………………………………..46
32. Alienation of trusteeship…………………………………………...47
33. Alienation of a Religious Office…………………………………...48
34. Remuneration of Pujaris…………………………………………...49
35. Founder’s Right……………………………………………………49
36. Cypres……………………………………………………………..50
37. Jurisdiction of courts………………………………………………51
38. Legislation………………………………………………………...52
39. Conclusion………………………………………………………...53
3
PART I- INTRODUCTION
“Let him without tiring always offer sacrifices (Ishta) and Perform works of Charity
(Purta) with faith, for offering and charitable works made with faith and with lawfully
earned money procure endless rewards. Let him always practice according to his ability
with a cheerful heart, the duty of liberality (danadharma) both by sacrifice (istha) and
charitable works (purta) if he finds a worth recipient for his gifts”
------Manu Smriti, IV, 216-17
The Hindu notions of what are charitable and religious objects differ fundamentally from
English notions. In England “Under Trust the ownership vests in trustee’s whereas in
Endowment the ownership vests in deity’s or institutions”
“An Endowment comes into existence only when some property or fund is
dedicated for a religious purpose or object.”
The essentials of a Valid Endowment are:-

1. The dedication must be complete. It includes Sankalpa ie formula of resolve or an
intention to dedicate properties. And Utsarga, i.e. renunciation of the property
2. The subject matter must be specific.
3. The object must be definite.
4. The settler must have capacity to make the endowment.
Ishta and Purta

Gifts for religious and charitable purposes were impelled by the desire to acquire
religious merit. They fall into two divisions:-
1. Ishta –means Sacrfices and sacrifical gifts. This led to heaven.
2. Purta – means Charities. This led to moksha or emacipation. Charity was thus
placed on a higher footing than religious ceremonies and sacrifices.
Manu says: “Let him. Without tiring always offer sacrifices (ishta) and perform
works of charity (purta) with faith; for offerings and charitable works made with faith
and with lawfully earned money procure endless rewards. Let him always practice,
according to his ability with a cheerful heart, the duty of liberality (danadharma) both
4
by sacrifices (ishta) and Charitable works (purta) if he finds a worthy recipient for his
gifts1”.
Ishta works are enumerated by Pandit Prannath Saraswati in his work on Endowments
as2:
1. Vedic Sacrifices
2. Gifts ffered to priests at the same
3. Preserving the Vedas
4. Religious austerity
5. Rectitude
6. Vaisvadeva Sacrifices
7. Hospitality (atithya)
Purta or charitable acts are tanks, wells with flights of steps, temples, Planting of groves,
the gift of food, dharamshalas (rest houses) and places for supplying drinking water, the
relief of the sick, the establishment of processions for the honour of deities and so on.
Gifts for the promotion of education and knowledge are specially meritorious3. It may be
noted that temples and processions for deities were considered as charitable acts (purta),
while hospitality (atithya) was considered as a sacrificial gift (ishta).
Charitable Trust
A charitable trust is an irrevocable trust established for charitable purposes, and is a more
specific term than "charitable organization". According to English law, “Charitable
trusts” in the legal sense comprise four principal divisions:
1
Manu, IV, 226-227
2
Saraswati, 20-21
3
Saraswati, 25-28
5
1. Trusts for the relief of poverty
2. Trusts for the advancement of education,
3. Trusts for the advancement of religion and
4. Trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any f the
preceding heads4.
All Charities to be administered by the court must fall within one or other of these
divisions but not every object which falls within those divisions s charitable unless it
is of a public nature, intended to benefit the community or some part of it, and not
merely private individuals or a class of private individuals5.
The courts in India have, in relation to Hindu wills and gifts, adopted the technical
meaning of charitable trusts and charitable purposes which the courts in England have
placed upon the term ‘Charity’ in the stature of Elizabeth. All the purposes which are
charitable according to English law will be charitable under Hindu law. But, in addition,
under the head of advancement of religion, there are other charitable objects in Hindu law
which will not be charitable according to English law, for that law forbids bequests for
what are termed superstitious uses; a restriction which does not apply to grants of this
character in India, even in the Presidency towns and such grants have been repeatedly
enforced by the Privy Council6.
What are purely religious purposes and what religious purposes will be charitable must of
course be entirely decided according to Hindu law and Hindu notions. What constitutes a
religious merit in Hindu law is a matter of shastric injunction. Where the religious beliefs
which are new are to be accepted by courts as being sufficient for valid perpetual
4
Morice VBishop of Durham (1805) 10 Ves 522, 532
5
Re Macduff, Macduff V Macduff (1896) 2 Ch 451, 466
6
Ramtonoo V Ramgopal 1 Kn 245
6
dedication of property therefore without the element of actual or presumed public benefit
it must at least be shown that they have obtained wide recognition and constitute the
religious practice of a substantial and large class of persons.
The definition of Charitable purpose in the Charitable Endowments Act (VI of

1890) included relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of
any other object of general public utility; but does not include a purpose which
relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship.
Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, refers to the public purposes of a
charitable or religious nature and the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (XIV of 1920)
refers to trusts create or existing for a public purpose of a Charitable or religious nature.
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines, in effect, public religious and charitable
trusts as transfers of property for the benefit of the public in the advancement of
religion, knowledge, commerce, health, safety or any other object beneficial to
mankind7.
While a Hindu Religious Trust provided for performance of charities not only of a
religious nature but of a secular nature such as providing drinking water and food for the
public without reference to caste r religion, the Supreme Court held, as non-Hindus are
also interested, Muslims can maintain a suit under section 92 CPC8.
A Charitable or religious endowment, in order to be a charity in the legal sense, will have
to be for purposes of a public nature, in other words, for the benefit of the community or
some part of it9. Grant for the service of a public deity installed in a public temple is a
7
Section 18 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
8
Venugopal Naidu v Venkat Rayudu Charities 1990SC 444
9
Ram Sarup Dasi v Sahi (S P) 1959 SC 951
7
public religious grant. “A Mahimai” is a donation of a charity consisting of a fixed
percentage on the sales or profits on commercial transactions done by the donor. In the
absence of dedication by the donor of the properties purchased with such collect ions of
Mahimai, they cannot become properties of the temple10. Otherwise it will be a private
trust. The word “trust” in Section 92, CPC is not used in a technical sense. Dedication to
public cannot be readily inferred from the mere fact that members of the public are freely
admitted to the temple for worship and or for attending festivals celebrated by mahants.
The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the cirucumstance
which gives strength to the inference that the user was as of right 11. Maths are generally
public religious trusts though there can be private Maths also12. A trust is nonetheless a
trust for a public purpose, if its main object is in fact the support of fakirs of a particular
sect and the propagation of the tenets of that sect13. The distinction of Hindu law between
religious and charitable endowments is a modern one14.
Where the object of public trust was to spread education for the benefit of the public and
to establish a school by a mandal which was to be established to carry out the purpose, it
was held that the trust is not void for uncertainty as the gift is not made on condition of
coming in to existence of the mandal15. The question of intention to dedicate the place for
use of the public or of the user by the public as of right is necessarily as matter for
inference from the nature of the institution, the nature of the user and the way the
institution has been administered. The extensiveness of the temple and of grants to it are
10
Sate of Madras v Paripalana Sangham (S S M) 1962 Mad 48
11
Bihar State Board v Bisheshwardas 1971 SC 2057: (1971) 1 SCC 574
12
Mahant Srinivas v Suryanarayana das ILR 1962Cut 903
13
Puran Atal v Darshan Das (1912) 34 ALL 468.
14
Manohur Mukerji v Bhupendranath (1933) 60 Cal 452, 457 FB.
15
Ambelal Makanji vManilal Naraharishanker (1961) 2 Guj LR 614
8
pertinent circumstances to be taken into account in judging the nature and extent of
public right16.
Where the ground floor was used as a place of worship and the first floor as the residence
of the founder and the temple had the appearance of a residential house, these
circumstances did not militate against the temple being a public temple when it satisfied
all the tests of a public temple17.
Public and Private Endowments
Religious endowments are of two kinds:-

1. Public Endowment
2. Private Endowment
In a public endowment, the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public at large or a
specified class18. But when property is set apart for the worship of a family God, in
which the public are not interested, the endowment is a private one. It is a question of fact
whether a temple is a private or a public one. The relevant factors to be taken into
consideration whether a temple is a public one or a private one are:-
1. Extent of properties belonging to the temple,
2. The course of conduct of the devotees,
3. The supervision exercised by the founder and his descendents whether the rents
and profits are exclusively utilized for the temple for a long period
4. Public visiting the temple for Darshan and worship
5. Appearance of the temple
16
Narayan Bhagwanta Rao v Gopal Vinayak 1960 SC
17
Goswami v Shaha Ramachodass 1970 SC 2025
18
Kannika Parameswari v Educational Institutions (1990) 1 MLJ 293
9
6. Association of the members of the public with the management and earlier
statements or admission of parties.
The mere fact that Hindu worshippers have been freely admitted to a temple does not
prove that the temple is public. Installation of Idol permanently on a pedestal and the fact
that the temple constructed on the ground separate from the residential quarters are not
conclusive proof of dedication to the public19.
However from a long course of user by the public it would be reasonable to infer that the
user was as of right. In the absence of a document long user is the material factor in
inferring dedication to the public.
The site of the temple is also one of the factors to be taken into consideration in deciding
whether the endowment is private or public. Where a temple is constructed on
Government site with contributions from the public and where contribution was paid to
HR and CE Board and no assertion that the temple was private, was previously made the
temple is a public temple and not a private temple.
Where a person of Vallabh Sect founded a temple in the capital of an erstwhile Indian
State, on the land owned by the ruler, funds were provided by the ruler and sumptuous
provision was made by the ruler for the upkeep f the temple, it was held by the Supreme
Court that the temple was a public temple.
In order to ascertain whether a trust is a Private trust, it must fulfill the following
conditions:-
1. If the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals
2. If the grantor has been made in favour of an individual and not in favour of the
deity
3. The temple is situated within the campus of the residence of the donor
19
Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v Bisheshwardas 1971 SC 2057
10
4. If the revenue records or entries suggest the land being in possession of an
individual and not in the deity.
On the other hand an inference can be drawn that the temple along with the
properties attached to it is a public trust:-
1. If the public visit the temples as of right
2. If the endowment is the name of the deity
3. The beneficiaries are public
4. If the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts
of the temple are being scrutinized by the public.
Merely, because the festivals are celebrated or Sadhus and other persons visiting the
temple are given food and shelter or that the public are permitted to visit the temple it is
not indicative of the temple being a public temple20.
In South India except in Kerala there is a presumption that the temple is a public temple.
There is no such presumption in Kerala state as that state comprised mostly of the
territory of the erstwhile State of Travancore where the existence of private temples was
recognized21. This presumption was held to apply to temples in the district Kanyakumari
in Tamil Nadu though it formed part of erstwhile State of Travancore. The family idols
are not however chattels or the property of the family. They are legal entities having,
within, limits, independent rights.
The right of entry into a public temple is a legal right but however can be regulated by the
temple authorities as to the number of visits and fixing the hours for the visit. Public may
be denied access t the sanctum sanctorium. No declaration of the right to receive gifts
offered by the pilgrims in a temple can be granted as the gift is voluntary act of pilgrim.
20
Goswami Ranchhoddas 1970 SC 2025
21
Koman Nair v Atchutham Nair ILR (1935) 58 Mad 91
11
A temple must be an excusively Hindu Temple to attract the provisions of the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The Mathrubhuteswar temple which is
a component of the Ramana Asram at Triuvannamalai is not a Hindu Temple as Sri
Ramana Mahrashi preached a Universal religion and the temple is of composite
character. A temple dedicated to Shirdi Saibaba has also been held to be not a Hindu
Temple.
Valid Religious Endowments

Gifts to religious institutions or for religious purposes of every kind are valid religious
endowments. It includes the following:-
1. Gifts for installation,
2. Consecration
3. Worship and Service of idols
4. Gifts to idols already installed and consecrated
5. Gifts for the building and renovation of temples
6. For the processions of idols and their vehicles
7. For religious Festivals
A permanent image of a diety is not necessary before a valid gift to it can be made under
Hindu law22. Where dedication did not specify the particular idol but stated that the
dedication was “Thakurji Maharaj” it was held that there was no valid dedication as the
idol could not be identified23. An image is a mere emblem or symbol, and according to
Hindu doctrine what is worshipped is not the image but the God in the image. There is
not absolute prohibition against the removal of an idol and it can be shifted to a new
temple if circumstances necessitates such removal24.
22
Purna Chandra v Kalipada Roy (1942) 46 CWN 477
23
Phool Chand v Puran Chand ILR (1962) 1 ALL 671
24
Palam Veeraiah v Praga Tools Coporation 1971(1) APLJ 258
12
Where a dedication offends against a Hindu law it must be turned down as a whole and
not partially25. Even if a property is dedicated to an idol and the idol is destroyed or
mutiliated, the endowment will not be affected in any way. A new Bhajan Mattam could
be constructed and Pujas could be made26. If the God is omnipresent, He is as much in
the image as elsewhere. It is also recognized that image worship is a lower form of
worship devised as suitable to the competency of worshippers in particular grade27.
Raising a tomb on the remains of an ancestor, an ordinary person is not recognized as

religious in nature. The person who contends that it is religious practice shall prove it.
But when the body is cremated and then a memorial is raised for performing sraddha
ceremony and conducting periodical worship, for this practice may not offend the Hindu
sentiment which does not ordinarily recognize entombing the remains of the dead. A
place of worship will not cease to be religious because of its being in the memory of the
person28.
Maths
Maths are the main religious institutions. The primary purpose of math are:-
1. The maintenance of a competent line of religious teachers for the advancement of
religion and piety,
2. For the promotion of religious knowledge,
3. The imparting of spiritual instruction to the disciples and followers of the math
and
4. The maintenance of the doctrines of particular religion or philosophy.
25
Thakurji v Parameswr Dayal 1960 All 335
26
Anatha Krishnana v Chidambaran 1953 Tra-Co 442
27
Veluswami Goundan v Dandapani (1946) I MLJ 354, 357-358
28
Nagu Reddiar v Banu Reddiar 1978 SC 1174
13
Though there are idols connected with the maths, their worship is quite a secondary
matter. The worship is primarily the concern of the head of the institution, the public are
generally admitted at the time of worship to see the saint or the guru in his prayers to his
Ishta Devata or the presiding deity of the math but the place of worship does not thereby
become a place to which the public can claim admission as a right. In addition to
religious instruction, other charitable purposes are also served by these institutions, some
of those maths being more charitable than religious.
The question whether the property is to be given to the Head of the Math for his personal
benefit has to be decided either from the terms of the grant or from the circumstances. An
inference can also be drawn from usage and customs of the institutions, or from the mode
in which the property has been dealt with as also other established circumstances.
In the debutter the central part of the institution is the Idol where as in a math it is an
ascetic or a religious teacher29. An institution being originally a debuttor cannot be
converted or treated as a math nor a math to a temple. Each Category continues to
maintain its distinctive characteristics30. The beginning of an Institution as Samadhi will
not have much bearing in deciding the question whether the institution is a math or a
temple31.
Charitable Endowments
Examples of bequest of Charitable Endowments are:-

1. Sadvarts
2. For Dharamshalas
3. Rest Houses &
29
Bihar State Board v Bisheshwar Das 1971 SC 2057
30
Ram Kishore Das Goswamy v Anatha Ram (1970) 36 cut LT 229
31
Mutt (R S) v Commissioner H R and C E 1957 AP 150
14
4. Annasatrams (Choultries) for feeding the poor
5. For the establishment and support of schools, colleges, and Universities.
6. For Dispensaries and hospitals for medical help to the sick and the infirm
7. For the Construction and maintenance of tanks, wells and reservoirs of water
8. For the Provision of drinking water for men and animals and so on.
The rights relating to a bathing ghat on the banks of Ganges at Benares is a subject-matter
to be considered upon the principles of the Hindu Law. If dedicated to such a purpose,
land or other property would be dedicated to an object both religious and of public utility,
just as much as is a dharamsala or a math, not withstanding that it be not dedicated to any
particular deity32. But a direction that money should be spent on the building of a tomb
and its maintenance does not constitute a charitable endowment.
Perpetual settlement of property for worship of a tomb is invalid. Samadhi by itself not
treated as a fitting object of Hindu Public religious worship for over a long period does
not evolve into a temple33. A samadhi over one who comes to be regarded as of the
illumanati or even the tombs of heroes may evolve in course of time as a shrine of Hindu
public worship. It is sufficient if the worshipper considered themselves likely to be a
recipient of the bounty o a blessing of a device presence which they believed to exist at
the place. Samadhi’s of saints are recognized as religious institutions in south. Where on
the Samadhi of the father a person erected if idols without any temple for his own
worship and made a perpetual endowment of property for the maintenance of the
Samadhi it was held not valid34.
32
Mahrani Hemanta Kumari v Gauri Shankar Tewari (1941) 68 IA 53
33
Ramanasramam v Commissioner H T and CE 1961 Mad 265
34
Sundara Kothanar v Sellam Pellai 1969 SCD 882
15
Bequest to DHARMA
It has frequently been held that a gift or bequest to dharma or dharma is void for
vagueness and uncertainty. In Wilson’s dictionary the tem “dharma” is defined as ‘law’
virtue, legal or moral duty. The reasons for holding such gifts or bequest to be void were
examined by the Privy Council in Runchordas Vandrawandas v Parvatibhat and the
judgement of Lord Eldon in Morice v Bishop of Durham was followed: As it is a maxim
that the execution of a trust shall be under the control of the court, it must be of such a
nature that it can be under the control so that the administration of it can be viewed by the
court, or if the trustee dies the court itself can execute the trust – a trust therefore which
in case of mal-administration could be reformed and a due administration directed, and
then, unless the subjects and objects can be ascertained upon principles familiar in other
cases, it must be decided that the court can neither reform mal-administration nor direct a
due administration.
Gifts void for Uncertainity
Bequests for such charitable or public purposes as the trustees think proper’ are void for
uncertainty. Where the trustees are allowed an alternative as to whether the purposes to
which they are to apply the property given are to be charitable or non-charitable, the gift
is void. So, “gifts for charitable purposes” or other purposes or “gifts expressed in other
alternative terms admitting non charitable”, for they may be executed without any part of
the property being applied to charitable purposes. “Gifts for charitable and benevolent
purposes for charitable” and “pious purposes for religious and benevolent purposes”, for
charitable and deserving objects, “for charitable and public purposes” and “for religious
and charitable institutions” and purposes are valid.
In Venkatanarasimha Ra v Subba Rao, it was held that a trust either for spread of
Sanskrit language or for the spread of Hindu religion or for both was void in law and
unenforceable; the words “for the spread of Hindu religion” were regarded as too vague
and uncertain to create an executable trust. The opinion of one of the judges in this case
16
that a trust for the spread of Sanskrit language is void, cannot be supported. A bequest of
the surplus income “for proper and just acts” for the testator’s benefit is bad for
uncertainty. The donor should indicate with certainly the object or the deity to which the
property was dedicated. Equally a direction to dispose of the residue in a righteous
manner in a pious and charitable way as may appear advisable to the executors is bad. A
direction to use an amount in good works is void35. But bequests of the residue to be
spent and given away in charity in such manner and to such religious and charitable
purposes as the executor may in his discretion think proper or to such charities as the
trustees may think deserving have been held to be valid charitable bequests.
A gift of the surplus income to be used in such manner as the executors may unanimously
think proper for purposes of popular usefulness or for purposes of charity has been held
to be bad for uncertainty. A bequest to any of my agnates or any other Brahmin who may
be brought in and settled in my dwelling house is void. A general direction to trustees to
pay at their discretion for the expenses of hospitals, educational and other institutions,
marriage and thread ceremonies and excavation and consecration of tanks in villages
having a dearth of water or In the construction and consecration of ghats and maths, has
been held void and inoperative for vagueness and uncertainty. In doubtful cases, it is
submitted that courts should lean in favour of a construction which would render valid
gifts or bequests for public, religious or charitable purposes.
DEDICATION HOW EFFECTED

A dedication of property, whether movable or immovable, for a religious or charitable
purpose, may, according to Hindu law, be validly made verbally. Even in the absence of
a document and ceremonies such as Sankalpa or Samarpan, dedication of property as a
question of fact may be established by other evidence36.
35
Bai Bapi v Jamnadas (1892) 22 Bom 774 (Sarakam)
36
Idol Murli Manoharji v Gopilal Garg 1971 Raj 177
17
No writing is necessary to create an endowment except where the endowment is
created by will, in which case the will must be in writing and attested by at least two
witnesses if the case is governed by the Indian Succession Act, section 57. A
dedication may be made by a gift inter vivos or by a bequest or by a ceremonial or
relinquishment. But a mere credit entry without setting aside and appropriating the sum
credited is insufficient to constitute an endowment under the Hindu law.
A dedication of land for a public temple is not a gift requiring a registered deed and is not
governed by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. But property may be
transferred by way of gift to the trustee or trustees of a temple. Such a transfer, being one
made to a living person, must however comply with the requirements of this section.
The Indian Trusts Act,1882, does not apply to public or private religious or charitable
endowments. The ceremonies for dedication are Sankapla, Utsarga and Pratista
(declaration, renunciation and impressing it with a trust). If Utsarga is there i.e.,
renunciation is there, the dedication must be held to have been made to the public. The
word ‘Utsarga’ is used for tanks and gardens. In the case of temples, the word used is
“Pratsta”. Where there was pratista of certain idol in a temple, the dedication was to the
public.
RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES NOT NECESSARY
On the question whether the usual religious ceremonies of sankalpa (the formula of
resolve) and samarpana (delivery) are necessary, there is a conflict of decisions.
Where the mutation is effected in the name of Dharmasala by the order of a Settlement
Officer, with a condition that produce should be used for the Langae ( kitchen ) and in
18
case it is not used to revert to a person or her daughter, it was held that there was no
unconditional Sankalpa by that person or permanent dedication37.
Having regard to modern conditions and views, they cannot be regarded as absolutely
essential requirements. It is the intention that is material and the dedication may be
expressed or inferred otherwise than from formal or religious ceremonies. Under
the Hindu law all that is required to constitute a religious or charitable endowment
is the intention to endow and the creation of a fund in fulfillment of that intention.
In other words, it is necessary that the donor should divest himself of the property
endowed38.
NO TRUST REQUIRED
In order to create a valid dedication a trust is not required. An appropriation of property

for specific religious or charitable purposes is all that is necessary for a valid
dedication39.
If the property is a tarwad and the future income is allowed to be spent, there is valid trust
and it cannot be terminated by non-performance of the services40.
In Vidyavaruthi v Balusami Ayyar, the Privy Council observed: “It is also to be

remembered that a ‘trust’ in the sense in which the expressin is used in English Law, is
unknown in Hindu System, pure and simple Hindu diety found expression in gifts to idols
and images consecrated and installed in temples, to religious institutions of every kind
37
Basanth Singh v Makhan Singh 1951 JK 6
38
Sundar Singh v Mg Committee (1938) 65 IA 106
39
Ram Dhan v Prayag Narain (1921) 43 ALL 503
40
Narayana Pillai v Kesava Pillai 1962 Ker LJ 389
19
and for all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu social and religious system: to
Brahmanas, Gswamis, Sanyasis etc. When the gift was to a holy person, it carried with it
in terms or by usage and custom certain obligations. Under the Hindu Law, the image of
a deity of the Hindu panteon, as has been aptly called a ‘Juristic entity’ vested with the
capacity of receiving gifts and holding property. Religious institutions known under
different names are regarded as possessing the same ‘juristic’ capacity and gifts are made
to them by nature.
In many cases in Southern India, especially where the diffusion of Arayan Brahmanism
was essential for bringing Dravidian peoples under the religious rule of the Hindu system,
colleges and monastries under the names of maths were founded under spiritual teachers
recognized sanctity. These men had and have ample discretion in the application of the
fund’s of the institution, but always subject to certain obligations and duties, equally
governed by custom and usage. When the gift is directly to an idol or a temple, the seism
to complete the gift is necessarily effected by human agency”.
The difference between English trust and endowment is that while ownership in the
former vests in the trustee, it vests in the latter in the deity or institutions41.
The maintenance of Sadavathas, tanks, seats of learning and homes for the disabled of the
destitutes and similar others is recognized and well known to Hindu Law and when
maintained as public institutions, they must be taken to have a legal personality as math
or the deity in a temple has and persons in management would occupy a position as
trust42.
41
Raman Lingayya v Commissioner of HR and CE ILP (1971) AP 320
42
Mariappa v Putta Ramayya 1958 Mys 93
20
Dedication May be absolute or Partial
A dedication for religious or charitable purposes may be either absolute or partial 43. In
the former case, the property is given out and out to an idol or to a religious or charitable
institutions and the donor divests himself of al beneficial interest in the property
comprised in the endowment44. Where the dedication is partial, charge is created on the
property or there is a trust to receive and apply a portion of the income for the religious
and charitable purposes45. Where records show the property in the personal names, in the
absence of a document showing the dedication it is partial dedication with a charge in
favour of the charity46. In such a case, the property descends and is alienable and partible
in the ordinary way, the only difference being that it passes with the charge upon it47.
The same rule would apply where the owner retained the property in himself, but granted
the community or part of the community an easement over it for certain specified
purposes48.
When a deed was in favour of a person as a manager of a particular temple, without

mentioning the quantity of the expenditure for specific services and when the income was
found very meager and there was no indication as to how any surplus has to be utilized, it
was held that it was a complete dedication to the temple49.
43
Iswari Bhubaneshwari v Brojo Nath Dey (1937) 64 IA 203, 211
44
Jagadindra Nath v Hemanta Kumari (1904) 31 IA 203
45
Snatun Bysack v Juggutsoondree (1859) 8 MLA 66
46
Gouri Shankar V Thakur Das 1972 JK 53
47
Ram coomar v Jogendra Nath (1878) 4 Cal 56
48
Jaggamoni v Nilmoni (1882) 9 Cal 75
49
Narasi v Balamma 1963 AP 130
21
The effect of a valid dedicatin is to place the property comprised in the endowment extra
commercium and beyond the reach of creditors50. The dedication is not invalidated by
reason of the fact that the members of the donor’s family are nominated trustees and
given reasonable remuneration out of the endowment and also rights of residence in the
dedicated property51.
The question whether the idol or the religious or charitable institution is to be considered
the true beneficiary, subject to a charge in favour of the heirs or specified relations of the
donor or whether the heirs are the true beneficiaries subject to a charge for the upkeep,
worship and expense of the idol or for the maintenance of any other religious or
charitable institutions will depend upon the construction of the terms of the gift or the
will as a whole52.
Where performance of certain religious ceremonies are made a charge on the income of
certain properties and there is no appreciable surplus, it is an absolute dedication53.
Where the grant states that one R is to worship by offering nyvedya etc, by spending
from “Akar” of the lands. It was held that Akar means income of the land and not the
assessment only and the grant is to the religious foundation, and R is not the owner of the
property54.
Provision may be made for the expansion of the purpose of the dedication as the income
exceeds what is required for it, the excess would not be comprised in the dedication. In
the case of absolute dedication of property to an idol the direction to the trustees to make
over a fraction of the income to the shebait is void55.
50
Bishen Chand v Syed Nadir (1887) 15 IA 1:15 Cal 329
51
Ishwari Bhubaneshwari v Brojo Nath Dey 1937 64 IA 203
52
Har Narayan v Surja Kunwari (1921) 48 IA 143:43 ALL 291
53
Narayan Swamy v Balasundaram 1953 Mad 750
54
Mahadeba Devasthanam v Mahadeba 1953 Bom 38
55
Rai Kishore Dasi (Smt) v Official Trustee 1960 Cal 235
22
Proof of Dedication
Very Strong and clear evidence of an endowment is required and the onus lies upon a
party who sets up a dedication to prove that property has been inalienably conferred upon
an idol to sustain worship or upon a religious or charitable institution56.
To constitute a trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious

nature, the author or authors of the trust must be ascertained and the intention to create a
trust must be indicated by words or acts with reasonable certainty. Moreover the purpose
of the trust, the trust properties and the beneficiaries must be indicated so as to enable the
court to administer the trust if required. Where there is no instrument of gift or trust, the
mere fact that the rents and profits of immovable property have been utilized for the
support of an idol or religious or charitable institution is insufficient to establish an
endowment or dedication57.
The fact that the deceased karta of a joint Hindu family regularly paid the expenses of a
choultry out of the profits of the family property the expenses however not exhausting the
whole of the profits, would not establish a dedication of the profits to the charity, for a
distinction must be made between meeting all the expenses of a charity out of a particular
property and applying all the receipts of that property to the charity58.
Where the deed of dedication mentions that the dedication is for the worship of a family
idol and that the settler had no children, it was held that the word “family” was used in its
popular sense which means children and when he had no children it was an indication
56
Parma Nandan v Nihalchand 65 IS 252: 1938 PC 195
57
Mudden Lal v Komal Bibee (1867) 8 WR 42
58
Gangi Reddi v Tammi Reddi (1927) 54 IA 136:50 Mad 421
23
that the dedication was not for the benefits of the family members or specified
individuals, then the endowment can only be regarded as public59.
The mere execution of a deed of a gift or instrument is not enough to constitute a valid
endowment60. It is necessary that the executant should divest himself of the property;
there must be a transfer of the apparent evidences of ownership from the donor to the
donee. Whether he has done so or not can only be determined by his subsequent acts and
conduct61.
Where a widow effaced her entire interest in a small item of property reserving a right to
enjoy in income subject to the liability to meet the expenses of lighting every day in the
temple it was held there was a valid endowment though possession was postponed till the
death of the settler62.
An allocation of specific property or fund to charity is essential both for effecting an

endowment under the Hindu law and for creating a valid trust. A mere credit entry in
the donor’s account books without setting apart and appropriating the sum credited is not
sufficient to establish a dedication63.
59
Deokinandan v Murlidhar 1957 SC 133 : (1956) SCR 756
60
Jadu Nath v Sitaramji (1917) 44 IA 187: 39 ALL 553
61
62
Kothanda Raja v Paramadesan 1981 Mad 207.
63
Sooniram Ramniranjandoss v Alagu Nachiar Koil (1939) 1 MLJ 192 PC
24
Seba Samarpana Patra is the only evidence of dedication in the absence of any other
material in proof of intention of divestment of ownership in the donor, there is no valid
dedication64. But in the case of creating a valid trust the following are necessary:-
1. Sufficient words to raise it
2. a definite subject
3. a certain or ascertainable object
Where the intention to dedicate is clear and the divestiture is contemporaneous, the
subsequent acts and conduct of the donor are irrelevant and cannot reinvest the property
in him, a valid endowment, once created, can never be revoked. Where, however , this is
not the case and his subsequent dealings with the property show that he did not intend to
create an endowment, there will be no trust and the property will not be debuttor and will
continue to be his and is liable to be attached and sold in execution of decrees against 65.
In the case where there is no real dedication of property but only an attempt to create
perpetuity is favour of one’s own descendants, the gift to the idol is void66. Where
however the trust has been effectually created, the fact that the trustees or other persons
concerned have failed to carry out the conditions of the trust will not invalidate it and
neither the founder nor his heirs can resume it67. The beneficial ownership in the trust
properties cannot in such circumstances revert to the founder or his family.
Religious endowments are of two kinds i.e.
1. to the maths in which case property vests in the hands of the math
2. to the idol in a temple which may be public or private and the idol is the only
beneficial owner68.
64
Sri Gopala Jeevthakkar v Pravsine 1967 Ori 85.
65
66
Promoth Dossee v Radhika Persaud (1875) 14 BLR 175
67
Gardhan Das v Chunnilal (1908) 30 ALL 111, 114, 115
68
Satya Charan v Rudra Nanda 1953 Cal 716.
25
IDOL, a Juridical Person
Where the dedication is of the complete character, the property comprised in it

belongs to the idol or the religious or charitable foundation conceived as a juristic
person capable of taking and holding property69. The shebait completely represents
the idol or the endowment – the deity, the religious purpose, the debuttor property70.
The possession and management of the dedicated property and the right to sue in
respect of it are vested in the manager, dharamakarta, or shebait. A suit respecting the
property in which the idol is interested is properly brought and defended in the name
of the idol, although ex-necessitate resi the proceedings in the suit must be carried on
by some person who represents the idol, usually the manager of the temple, in which
the idol is installed71. The position of a manager of an institution is analogous to that
of a next friend of a minor and the suit filed by him in his personal capacity is
governed by Order 22, rule 3, CPC and the suit abates on his death. But the suit filed
on behalf of the idol does not abate as the idol has perpetual existence72.
A suit can be brought in the name of the idol, also by a person who is a de facto
manager of the temple73. So long an action for recovery of property belonging to a
trust held adversely by a stranger is for the benefit of the real owner, namely, the idol
or the math and the person suing is the only person managing the affairs of the idol or
the math, there is no reason why the action should be held not to be maintainable74.
69
Yogendranath v Commr of IT 1969 SC 1089
70
Jagadindra Nath v Hemanta Kumari (1904) 31 IA 203, 206. 32 Cal 129
71
Jodhi Rai v Basdeo Prasad (1911) 33 ALL 735 FB
72
Gajanand Maharaj Samsthan v Rama Rao Kasinath 1954 Nag 212
73
Iswar Ram Chandra v Bengal Duars Bank Ltd. AIR 1941 PC 33
74
Sankaranarayana v Sri Poovanathaswami Temple (1949) 2 MLJ 171 FB
26
But the pujari claiming personal interest in the property to be recovered cannot file a
suit on behalf of the idol75.
Where there are several trustees or shebaits, all of them should if possible, join as co-
plaintiffs in a suit brought on behalf of the deity and only such of them should be
made defendants as are unable or unwilling to be joined as co-plaintiffs or have done
some act precluding them from being plaintiffs76.
Where a shebait refuses or ignores to file a suit on behalf of the idol any person who
claims shebaitship may sue on behalf of the idol. A suit by shebait for mere
declaration of title to the property when idol is out of position is not maintainable77.
But it is permissible to file a suit in the name of the idol where the shebait has not
been appointed, the court appointing some person to act as the guardian ad litem of
the idol. But a person who is not a shebait and has not been appointed by the court as
the next friend of the idol cannot represent it in the suit. The rules relating to a suit by
a minor contained in Order 32, CPC cannot be followed in a suit on behalf of an idol,
since the idol is not a perpetual minor78.
Where there is a breach of trust or the shebait claims adversely to the idol it is
necessary that the idol should be represented by a disinterested next friend. Where a
shebait claims to establish his right to the office and it becomes necessary to represent
the idol it is the person next in order of succession to the shebaitship can validly act
as next friend of the idol and if he brings the suit, it cannot be help to be incompetent.
A shebait who has renounced his office in favour of the plaintiff if not added as party
in the suit, it is not fatal to the suit. When the trustees hadn’t taken steps for
75
Thakur Govind v Susalli 1967 ALL 278.
76
Chanchibai v Ram Charanjee 1965 MP 167
77
Bechu Lal v Oliullah (1885) 11 Cal 338
78
Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew v Kanta Mohan AIR 1947 Cal 213
27
recovering possessin from a trespasser, a worshipper’s suit is maintainable so also
where shebaits acted adversely.
In Pramatha Nath Mullick v Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, where the appellant claimed
the right to remove the image during his terms of worship, their lordships held that
the will of the deity as regards its location must be respected and the suit was remitted
in order that the image might appear by a disinterested person to be appointed by the
court. Where in an old temple in ruins, Moolavar is not found except an utsavar,
installation of new image revives the old legal personality of the image79.
In a suit filed by shebait who have personal interest towards their emoluments for
managing the temple in the debuttor property such portion in which they have interest
is partible. Deity need not be a party where there is no dispute as to its title. Where
two persons are co-sharers in shebait and Pujari rights a suirt for an injunction
restraining the other from exercising the rights is not maintainable80.
79
Raghavachary v Narayana 1974 Mad 166.
80
Nagarwati Devi v Girijapati Tiwari 1982 ALL 80
28
Female Manager
A female can be the manager of a religious endowment though she cannot perform
spiritual functions. It has been held that a Hindu female is not incompetent by reason
of her sex to succeed to the office of archaka or worshipper in a temple and to the
emoluments attached thereto, for she may appoint a qualified deputy to officiate in
her stead; in case the female appointed as shebait is a minor, or her legal guardian is
competent to accept a gift on behalf of the idol. Where a widow succeeds to
shebaitship she has a widow’s estate in the same. Where a female heir succeeds to
shebaiti her interest would be limited estate unless she lived till after the Hindu
Succession Act of 1956. Any appointment made by her as limited owner ceases on
her death (before the act of 1956) unless there is any specific extra powers conferred
on her as a co-heir.
Position of Manager of a temple/Dharamkarta/ Shebait
The manager of a temple is by virtue of his office the administrator of the properties
attached to it, as regards which he is in the position of a trustee. As regards the
service of the temple and the duties appertaining to it, he is rather in the position of
the holder of an office or dignity81.
The position of a dharamkarta of a public temple is not that of a shebait or pujari of a

shrine or of the head of a math. Those functionaries have a much higher right with
larger powers of disposal and administration and they have a personal interest of a
beneficial character. The dharamakarta is literally no more than the manager of a
charity and his rights are never in a higher legal category than that of a mere trustee.
There is a considerable difference between the position and functions of a
Dharamkarta of a religious endowment in the south on the one hand and pujari,
81
Ramanathan Chetti v Murugappa Chetti (1906)33 IA 139: 29 Mad 283, 289
29
archakas, mahants, head of the math and shebaits in the north on the other.
Dharamkarta is a mere manager. His liability will be that of a trustee but he holds an
office. It may be held individually collectively or by a family or by a number of
families.
The shebait is one who serves and sustains the deity whose image is installed in the
shrine. The duties and privileges of a shebait are primarily those of who fills a sacred
office.
Shebaitship in its true conception therefore involves two ideas:-

1. the ministrant of the deity and
2. its manager
It’s not a bare office, but an office together with certain rights attached to it. Even
where no emoluments are attached to the office of the shebait, he enjoys some sort of
right or interest in the endowed property which partially at least has the character of a
proprietary right. Thus, in the conception of shebaiti, both the elements of the office
and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up and blended together and
one of the elements cannot be detached from the other. A shebaiti interst or office is
heritable. Where one dedicates his estate and appoints himself as a shebait it was held
that the property ceases t be heritable by his heirs82.
The position of a shebait, dharmakarta or manager of a temple or other religious

institutions towards debutter proerty is not similar to that in England of a trustee
towards the trust property. It is only that certain duties have to be performed by him
which are analogous to those of trustees. They have not the legal property which is
vested in the deity or institutions. Each of them has only the title of a manager of a
religious endowment and is as such entitled, subject to usage, to the custody of the
idol and its properties. In the case of trustees the properties vest in the trustees, where
82
Ramcharun v Girija Nandani Devi 1959 ALL 473
30
there are no trustees for a temple the poojari is a defacto trustee. The hereditary
trustee of a temple have generally only a bare right to administer the secular estate of
the institutions, or endowment. They do not have any proprietary right or interest
either in the corpus or usufruct of the estate. The position of a hereditary trustee is
equivalent to a dharamkarta or a manager. The only exception is the hereditary trustee
succeeds to the office as a right according to the rules of the succession. He cannot be
equated to shebait or a Mathadhipati or a Mahant in whome ingredients of both office
and property are blended together. His bare right to manage an institution cannot be
treated as property with the meaning of Articles 19(1) or Article 31 of the
constitution. If hereditary trustee be a minor a guardian can be appointed in respect of
the trust property.
Right to Offerings
The right of a shebait or of a priest to offerings made to an idol naturally depends

upon the nature of the offerings in the absence of a custom or an express declaration
by the founder to the contrary. Where they are of a permanent character, they
ordinarily belong to the temple83. Where they are perishable they may be appropriated
by the priest or other persons entitled to it by custom84.
Right to worship does not carry right to receive offerings. A suit for division does not
lie. But the right of worship coupled with right to receive offerings is property and a
suit against other joint owners for division of such offerings lies85.
83
Kumaraswami Asari v Lakshmana Gaunden (1930) 53 Mad 608
84
Gamgadhara Mudali v Doraisami bhattar (1937) MWN 975
85
Muthu Krishnan v Palani 1969 (I) MLJ 129
31
Offerings made to the idol cannot be appropriated by the Mahant though he can
appropriate the offerings made to his math86. In the case of bigger temples it may be
said that the servant of a temple cannot properly function as a trustee as well. But it
does not apply to small temples with small property. In such cases the presumption is
that the pujari himself is the hereditary trustee and there is no wrong to combine
pujariship and trusteeship in one person87.
A pujari is not a mutawalli or a shebait but only a servant of a shebait and is not
entitled to continue as a matter of right. He cannot have independent right though he
carries the worship daily and lives in the premises or part of the endowed property or
he is allowed to share the kanukas offered to the deity88.
A pujari can be dismissed by a shebait for good and sufficient reasons which are
liable to examination by a court of justice. Where hereditary pujari is appointed for a
public temple and emoluments are attached to that office, the right to such office is a
right to property and his removal from the office is only by a civil suit and not by a
shebait. It is heritable and partible89. The hereditary pujari’s (archgaka’s) office is
property and devolves like any other property according to the ordinary law of
inheritance. When it is sold the transfer is illegal90.
86
Tulisram v Ram Prasanna 1956 Ori 41
87
Baba Gurukkal v Commissioner of HR and CE 1964 I MLJ 384
88
Lalit Kishore v Lakshmiharayan ILR (1968) 18 Raj 171
89
Ramanujacharyulu v Pandurangacharyulu 1957 AP 272
90
Seshacharyulu v Venkatacharyulu 1957 AP 876
32
Borrowing and alienations for necessity
The possession and management of the property of a religious endowment belong to
the manager, dharmakarta or shebait and this carries with it the right to bring
whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property. The limit set to his
power of disposition is to maintain and preserve by proper management the
endowment or religious institution.
The nature and extent of the power of alienation for necessity is laid down in
Hanooman Persaud v Mussammat Babooee91. The principle expounded by Lord
Justice Kinght Bruce in that case apply not only to a mother acting as guardian of the
property of her minor son and the Hindu widow and to the karta of a joint family but
to the managers of endowments as well. It is, therefore, competent for the manager,
shebait or dharmakarta to incur debts and borrow money for the proper expenses of
keeping up the religious worship, repairing the temples, or other possessions of the
idols, instituting or defending hostile litigious attacks and to prevent the endowed
properties from being brought to sale in execution of decrees binding upon the
institution92.
The power however to incur such debts must be measured by the existing necessity
for incurring them93. The authority of the manager of an idol’s estate is thus
analogous to that of the manager for an infant heir whose power to alienate can only
be exercised rightly in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate.
A debutter estate may therefore be mortgaged to secure repayment of money

borrowed and applied to prevent its extinction by sequestration. For an absolute
alienation of debutter property, there must it would seem, be an imperative necessity
91
(1856) 6 Mla 393
92
Prosunna Kumarii v Golab Chand (1875) 2 IA 145
93
Niladri Sahu v Chaturbhuj Das (1926) 53 IA 253
33
constraining the manager to make it. In these matters, it is only the immediate, not
the remote cause, the causa causans of the borrowing which has to be considered. The
construction of buildings for the reception and accommodation of visitors or of the
dinning halls for feeding pilgrims are necessities94. The construction of a temple for
the better housing of the idol in the place of a thatched temple is a legal necessity.
Benefit of the Estate
The preservation of the estate from extinction, the defence against hostile litigation
affecting it, the protection of it or portions from injusy or deterioration by inundation,
are things held to be benefits. But a manager would not be justified in selling
debutter land for the purpose of investing the price of it so as to bring in more
income95. In the case of public religious and charitable endowments it is submitted
that benefit to the estate and necessity should mean one and the same thing; to
recognize “benefit to the estate” as a ground for supporting an alienation of debutter
property, apart from strict necessity, would be to enlarge the powers of shebaits or
dharamkartas far too much and slowly to undermine the very foundation of the
institution.
However where a gift is made in favour of a temple with a condition that the property
shall not be alienated, the alienation, if made, is illegal. In such a case the question of
necessity or benefit does not arise. The donors or their heirs are entitled to sue for
possession of the property subject to the bar of limitation96.
94
Vibhudapriya v Lakshmindra (1927) 54 IA 228
95
Palaniappa Chetty v Devasikamony (1917) 44 IA 147
96
Hari Singh v Bishan lal 1992 P & H 11
34
Permanent leases Invalid
It is beyond the powers of a manager to grant a permanent lease at a fixed rent in the
absence of unavoidable necessity; for, to fix the rent, though adequate at the time, in
perpetuity in lieu of giving the endowment the benefit of an augmentation of a
variable rent from time to time would be a breach of duty on the part of the manager
and is not binding on the deity.
In Palaniappa Chetty v Sreemath Deivasikamony, Lord Atkinson observed: “

Three authorities have been cited which establish that it is a breach of duty on the part
of a shebait, unless constrained thereto by unavoidable necessity, to grant a lease in
perpetuity of debutter lands at a fixed rent, however adequate that rent may be at time
of granting, by reason of the fact that, by this means the debutter estate is deprived of
the chance it would have, if the rent were variable, of deriving benefit from the
enhancement in value in the future of the land leased”.
Where the validity of a permanent lease granted by the shebait is called into question
a long time after although it is not possible to ascertain fully what the circumstances
were in which it was made the court should assume that the grant was made for
necessity so as to be valid beyond the life of the grantor 97. A trustee, where the forest
land which is of no use to the temple, was leased out by the manager, for establishing
a Siva temple and Dharmasala it was held that it cannot be said that the lease was not
for the benefit of the temple, however, can create proper derivative tenures and
estates conformable to usage. A lease granted by a person who has no title choses to
take upon himself as de facto trustee is not valid as the characteristic of a trustee is
one who is in actual possession of the property.
97
Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jiew Thakur v Pratapmal Bagaria (1951) SCR 3323
35
Alienation by one of several trustees
The execution of a deed in respect of the property of an idol by one alone, of several
trustees, though he is the de facto manager and trustee entitled as such to act in an
emergency, would be ineffectual in conveying a valid title to such property or in
binding the idol. In the case of co-trustees, the office is a joint one. Where the
administratin of the trust is vested in co-trustees, they all form as it were but one
collective trustee and therefore, must execute the duties of the office in their joint
capacity.
If any one refuses or be incapable to join it is not competent for the others to proceed
without him, but the administration of the trust must in that case devolve upon the
court. However, the act f one trustee done with the sanction and approval of a co-
trustee may be regarded as the act of both. But such sanction or approval must be
strictly proved98.
Where two persons are appointed jointly to be shebaits, they do not become joint
tenants. If one, dies, his heirs will alone succeed to the post of the deceased shebait
and not the other99. It is not open to one to relinquish his right to ensure beyond his
lifetime in favour of the other to the exclusion of his heirs in direct line100.
Obligations of Manager
As the manager is subject to the obligation of a trustee, he should not however
purchase any property belonging to the endowment even though he pays an abundant
price for it101. For all money expended in carrying out the obligations imposed upon
98
Man Mohan Das v Janki Prasad (1945) 72 IA 39
99
Raj Kishoridasi (Smt) v Official Receiver 1960 Cal 235
100
Janakiram v koushalyanandan 1961 Pat 293
101
Peary mohan Mukherji v Manohar Mukerji (1921) 48 IA 258 Cal 1019
36
him as trustee, all expenditure incurred by him in defending his position as the shebait
unsuccessfully assailed, he is entitled to be reimbursed from the trust estate.
It is the duty of dharamkarta or manager or shebait to maintain the customary usages

of the institutions and if he fails to do so, he is guilty of a breach of trust.
Liability on account – A shebait, manager, or dharamkarta is bound to keep the true

and correct accounts of all moneys received and disbursed102. Any negligence on the
part of the shebait in maintaining accounts cannot lead to adverse inference against
the deity103.
A trustee or a shebait cannot delegate his authority but it is open to him to appoint a
sub-agent or manager of the property. Such appointment must only be as a means of
carrying out his own duties himself.
Position of an Asthal and the head of the Math
The head of the math is the manger of an institution with wider powers than those
possessed by a dharmakarta, manager or trustee of a temple. He acts in two distinct
capacities:-
1. He is the spiritual head of the endowment, the shebait of the deity
2. He is also the manager of the properties and temporal affairs.
The Supreme Court has defined the powers and position of a Mathadhipati. A
Mathadhipati is not a trustee in the strict sense. He is a manager or custodian of the
institution who has to discharge the duties of or trustee and is answerable as such. But he
102
Thackersey Dewraj v Hurbhum Nursey (1884) 8 Bom 432
103
Ram Das v Shri Ram Lakshman Janki ILR (1943)ALL 845
37
is not a mere manager and it would not be right to describe mahantship as a mere office.
In the conception of mahantship both the elements of office and property of duties and
personal interest are blended together. The personal or beneficial interest of the mahant
in the endowments attached to the institution is manifested in his large powers of disposal
and administration and his right to create derivative tenures in respect of endowed
properties.
These and other right of a similar character invest the office of the mahant with the
character of proprietary right within the meaning of Article 19(f) of the constitution. A
mathadhipati is not a corporate body. He is the head of spiritual fraternity and by virtue
of his office he has to perform the duties of a religious teacher104.
Offerings made by devotees at the feet of the head of the Vallabh Sect as Charanseva and
similar offerings when he is on the move belong to him, as such gifts are personal105.
Where a mahant systematically pursued business and acquired considerable properties
and there is vary little nucleus of endowed property, it was held that the property acquired
by him was his personal property106.
Apart from a case of necessity, he is incompetent to create any interest in the math
property to ensure beyond his life107. Unlike the manager of a religious or charitable
institution, the head of a math has ample discretions in the application of the funds of the
math but always subject to certain obligations and duties governed by custom and
usage108.
104
Commr HR and CE v Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar 1954 SC 282
105
Heir of Purushotam Lalji v Collector 1986 SC 2094
106
Gurucharan Parasad v Krishnandagiri 1968 SC 1032
107
Vidyavaurthi v Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302
108
Vibhudapriya v Lakshmindra (1927) 54 IA 228
38
The disciples of a math have sufficient interest to maintain a representative suit not only
for a declaration of the invalidity of an improper alienation of the math properties by the
head math but also for a decree directing possession to be given to the head of the math
for the time being109.
A mahant can have personal property apart from the property of the math110. Where a
mahant purchased property from funds inherited from his predecessor who had acquired
it in consequence of his personal learning it was held that the property would be as his
personal property and not that of the math111.
While during the family partition the “uttara“ part of property was kept separate for the
deity and one was acting as trustee he cannot claim adverse possession and prescribes
title for that property as under section 10 of the Limitation Act,1908 person includes
family112.
109
Chidambaranatha v Nallasiva (1918) 41 Mad 124
110
Marasomgjswai v Satnani 1957 Ori 86
111
Mathsanna v Kedarnath 1981 SC 1878
112
Padmanabha v Ramachandra Rao 1953 Mad 842
39
Limitation for suit
Special rules of limitation have now been enacted in respect of suit for the recovery of
immovable and movable properties which have been alienated by the manager.
Notwithstanding that in law a manager of a religious or charitable institution is not an
express trustee, for the purpose of the Limitation Act the property comprised in a Hindu
religious or charitable endowment, is, by section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908,
as amended by Act I of 1929, deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose
and the manager is to be deemed the trustee thereof,. The result is that as against him and
his legal representatives or his assigns, not being assigns for valuable consideration, a suit
to follow the trust property or its proceeds or for an account of such property or proceeds
is not barred by any length to time.
To set aside alienations
A suit to set aside a transfer of property for value made by a manager of a religious or
charitable endowment is governed by Article 134A and 48B of the Limitation Act
prescribing periods of twelve and three years, according as the property is immovable or
movable, from the time when the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff. These article
relate to suits by persons interested in the endowment to set aside alienations made by the
manager113.
To Recover Property
A suit by the manager of a religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of

immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred, or of
113
Chidambarnatha v Nallasiva (1918) 41 Mad 124
40
movable property which has been sold, by a previous manager for valuable consideration
must be brought within twelve years from the death, removal or resignation of the
transferor or of the seller under Article 134B and 134C of the Indian Limitation Act.
Article 134B would apply to a suit to recover possession of immovable property from an
alienee, even where there is an interval of time between the death, resignation or removal
of the manager who effected he alienation in question and the election or appointment of
the subsequent manager114. Shebait cannot abdicate altogether their duties and functions
while retaining their office of trust and delegate the right to sell, gift or mortgage the
property. The alienee cannot have any right of adverse possession. Article 134B has no
application115. Even prior to the amendment of the Limitation Act, t was held that an
invalid alienation, such as a permanent lease, was good for the life of the alienor and
adverse possession commenced to run against his successors and the institutions, under
Article 144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, only from the death or other termination
of office of the transfer116.
In Vidyavaruthi v Balusami and in Ponnam bala Desikar v Periyanan Chetti, it was

further held that in the case of a permanent lease, acceptance of rent by a successor of the
transferor who made the invalid alienation would create a new lease for the life of the
successor so that adverse possession could run against the institution only on his death.
Where however no such inference of a new lease could be made, the possession would be
adverse from the termination of the office of the transferor. Where, however, a temple
and its properties, or a math and its properties, are sold, the alienation will not be good
for the life of the transferor and adverse possession will commence to run from the date
of the alienation as it is a destruction of the entire trust.
114
Venkateshwara v Venkatesa ILR (1941) Mad 599 FB.
115
Bakreshwar v Brajabandhu 1963 Ori 127
116
Vidyavaruthi v Balusami (1921) 48 IA 302:44 Mad 831
41
Setting aside of alienation
An alienation of endowed property made by a manager or dharmakarta of a religious or

charitable institution or the head of a math can be set aside not only by his successor but
also by persons interested in the endowment even during the lifetime of the alienor117.
Whether in such a case, the alienation can be declared void in toto or void only beyond
the life or tenure of office of the alienor is not yet settled. It was however held that in
regard to a public temple the worshippers have a right to file a suit to set aside a transfer
of immovable property by the manager and ask for a declaration that the transfer was null
and void.
The Supreme Court observed that the worshippers cannot claim to recover possession
citing Mukherjee’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, 5th Edition, pages367,
368 and section 94 of the Limitation Act of 1963. As the suit in that case was only for a
declaration that the sale was null and void, the question whether in such a suit the
worshippers can also claim possession on behalf of the idol did not arise for
consideration.
Where the alienation is by way of a permanent lease at an adequate rent, it will be good
for the tenure of office of the alienor and will be declared to be invalid beyond the
termination of office, for the institution will have the benefit of the rents even during the
alienor’s tenure of office. Where however the alienation is by way of sale or gift or a
permanent lease at a low rent it would seem on principle that in the absence of necessity,
it is liable to be set aside in toto.
117
Chidambaranatha v Nallasiva (1918) 41 Mad 124
42
Burden of Proof
In the case of an alienation made by the head of a math or other religious institution the
burden lies upon the alienee to prove either that the debt was incurred for necessary
expenses of the institution itself or that he made proper and bonafide inquires as to the
existence of such necessity118. The rules applicable to alienations of the manager for an
infant heir are equally applicable. Where, however, holder after holder of a math
recognizes and deals with a debt as one binding on himself and his successors, or where
with lapse of time the parties to the transaction have died or disappeared, the court is
more easily satisfied that the debt property incurred119. Where the validity of a
transaction a mortgage or a permanent lease granted by a manager comes into question
after a very long time so that it is not possible to ascertain what were the circumstances
under which it was made, the court will assume that the grant was made for necessity so
as to be valid120.
Creditors remedies for unsecured loans

In a suit to recover a simple money debt, incurred by the head of a math for its necessary
purpose, where there is no indication that he intended to make himself personally liable,
the properties of the math can be made liable whether the suit is brought during the
lifetime of the incumbent who incurred the debt or his successor121.
118
Knwur Doorganath v Ram Chunder (1876) 4 IA 52
119
Murugesam v Manika Vasaka (1917) 44 IA 98
120
Magniram Sitaram v Kasturbhai (1921) 49 IA
121
Lakshmindra v Raghvendra (1920) 43 Mad 795
43
In such cases the decree should provide as was held in Niladri Sahu v Mahant Chaturbhuj
Das122, that on default of payment by the successor, a receiver may be appointed of the
income of the math so that his beneficial interest may be applied to discharge the decree
after providing for the expenses of the math, the performance of ceremonies and a
reasonable provision for the maintenance of the head of the math.
In Vibhudapriya v Lakshmindra123, where the head of a math borrowed moneys for the
expenses of a periodic festival, for the feeding of all Brahman pilgrims and for rebuilding
a dinning hall, it was held that they were proper purposes. The debts were held to be
binding on the successor, though they were only simple money debts and no charge was
created. The lender to a math is bound to enquire into the necessities of the math before
he lends money. It is not enough if it is shown that the amount borrowed was spent for
some purposes connected with the math124.
Decrees against Managers and Heads
A decree passed in a suit against a shebait, manager, or dharmakarta, as representing an

idol or religious or charitable institution is binding on his successors, provided it was
passed without any fraud or collusion. The reason is that the successors in office form a
continuing representation of the property of the idol or the math125. So also, a decree can
be validly passed against a de-facto trustee of a temple who is in possession and
management thereof so as to bind the temple126. It has been held that the head of the
math represents it even when the suit is brought on a promissory note executed by him
122
(1927)53 IA 253
123
(1927) 54 IA 228 0 Mad 497
124
Narasinghaswami v Singhani 1957 ri 86
125
Prosunno Kumari v Golab Chand (1875) 2 IA 145
126
Sri Vedpureswarar Temple v Sundaresa Gurukkal (1945) 2 Mlj 399
44
and that he cannot question the validity of the transaction. The binding nature of the
decree in such cases is not affected by the fact that it is based on the compromise 127. But
where a decree is made against the trustee personally, the corpus of the trust estate cannot
be sold to satisfy the claim of the judgement-creditior128.
Devolution of Mahant’s Office

Succession to the office of mahant or head of a math is to be regulated by the custom of
the particular math and one who claims the office by right of succession is bound to
allege and prove that the custom of the particular institution is , for, the only law
regulating succession to such institutions is to be found in the custom and practice of that
institution129. As was observed in Vidyapurna Tirthaswami v Vidyanidhi Tirthswami, in
most cases especially in Southern India, the successor is ordained and appointed by the
head of the math during his own lifetime and in default of such appointment, the
nomination may rest with the head of some kindred institution of the successor may be
appointed by election by the disciples and followers of the math or in the last instance by
the court as representing the sovereign. Where the head of a religious institution is bound
to celibacy, it is frequently, the usage that he nominates his successor by appointment
during his own lifetime or by will130. There is no inflexible rule that senior chela only
shall have to be nominated. If the mahant makes no nomination, senior chela would
succeed. Such a power of nomination must however be exercised not corruptly or for
ulterior reasons, but bonafide and in the interest of the math; otherwise the appointment
will be invalid. Neither the office of a mahant not the property of math can be the subject
of partition.
127
Manika Vasaka Desikar v Balagopalakrishna (1906) 29 Mad 553
128
Daisya Pillai v Pattamuthu Mudaliar 1953 Mad 624
129
Satnam v Bhagwan AIR 1938 PC 216
130
Hooghly v Kishnamund SD of 1848, 253
45
Chela not an Adopted Son
A chela, as is well known, means a disciple. He is different from an adopted sn, but both
in the process of his initiation and in the purpose of his existence. A chela, is generally
nominated by the ruling mahant during his lifetime to conduct the affairs of a religious
institutions, or if he fails to do so, the chela is nominated after his death, by his principal
followers who are connected with the institution. Usually the succession devolves on the
chela, but chela does not succeed to the office of the Mahant as a matter of course. He
acquires the right only by appointment. There could be no analogy between him and an
adopted son, as known to Hindu law. In the case of the latter, it is imperative that one of
his genitive parents must receive him in adoption. Without such a gift and taking, no
adoption can be valid. It may be mentioned that the principal function of an adopted son
is to perform periodically shraddhas to his parents andother ancestors for the salvation of
their souls. None of these incidents is to be found in the case of a chela. His affiliation, if
it may be so described, is mainly for the purpose of contintuing the traditional obligation
of the institution and holding and managing its property for purposes incidental thereto.
Devolution of Managership
The devolution of the office of shebait of an idol or of dharamkarta of a temple or

manager of a charitable endowment, upon the death or termination of office of the
incumbent, depends upon the terms upon which it was created or the usage of each
particular institution, where no express deed of trust of foundation exists. Where there is
a failure of the line of succession to the office of shebaitship prescribed by the founder,
the shebaitship will not revert to the heirs of the founder unless expressly stipulated. The
vacancy can be supplied by court. Where nothing is said in the grant as to the succession,
the right of management passes by inheritance to the natural heirs of the donee, according
46
to the rule that a grant without words of limitation conveys an estate of inheritance,
unless such devolution is inconsistent with, or opposed to the purpose the founder had in
view in creating the trust or where the office is descendible to a single heir. A shebait’s
interest is inheritable131. The property passes with the office and neither the office nor the
management is divisible among the members of the family132. Principles applicable to
family settlements in general would equally apply to family arrangement with regard to
have the right to trusteeship.
Alienation of trusteeship
A trustee cannot sell, lease or otherwise alienate the right of management nor is the right
saleable in execution under a decree133. In Ravah Vurmah Valia v Ravi Vurmah Kunhi
Kutty the Privy Council observed that even if a custom sanctioning not merely the
transfer of a trusteeship but the sale of a trusteeship for the pecuniary advantage of the
trustee of a trusteeship but the sale of a trusteeship for the pecuniary advantage of the
trustee was set up, they would be disposed to hold that that circumstances alone would
justify a decision that the custom was bad in law. Neither a hereditary dharmakarta nor a
shebait nor the head of a math has a right to alienate his office by sale, gift or will, not
can he appoint his successor, unless authorized to do so by the deed of endowment or by
the usage of institution134. However, in Shambu v Ladli Radha, it was held that a widow
who inherited the shebaitship which became her absolute property under sec 14(1) of the
Hindu Succession Act could transfer the shebaitship by will to any person who is not a
non-Hindu. It was observed that though it was held in KK Ganguli v Panna Banerjee, that
a transfer by will was not permitted, subsequent decisions had taken a different view. The
Supreme Court also observed that Ganguly v Panna Banerjee was a case of transfer for
131
Ram Raj Pandi v Ram Balak Singh 1956 Pat LR 298
132
Jaafar v Ali (1864) 2 Mad HC 19
133
Durga v Chanchal (1881) 4 ALL 81
134
Annasami Pillai v Ramakrishna (1901) 24 Mad 419
47
consideration. When an impartible estate is transferred to a stranger (in whose hands the
estate will not continue to be impartible), the trusteeship of a religious or charitable
institution held by the holder of the estate cannot pass as an annexe to the impartible
estate, even if it is shown that, so long, as the original family held the Zamindari, the
trusteeship vested in the Zamindar for the time being135.
Alienation of a Religious Office
But an alienation by gift or will of a religious or secular office, without receiving any
consideration, to a person standing in the line of succession and free from objections
relating to the capacity of a particular individual to perform the worship of an idol or do
any other necessary functions connected with it, may be valid 136. In the case of Archakas,
such an alienation when made in favour of one in the line of heirs of the alienors and
when it is neither for consideration, nor in any way opposed to or inconsistent with the
interest of the institution, is valid137. In such cases the alienation of the religious office is
in fact little more than a renunciation of the right to hold the office and it is always open
to an office-holder to resign his office or to relinquish his rights under a compromise138.
It has been decided in Calcutta that a private endowment of a family idol may be
transferred to another family, the idol being a part of the gift and the property continuing
to be appropriated to its benefit as before139.
135
Veerappa v Thangachami ILR (1946) Mad 343, 348
136
Mancharam v Pranshankar (1882) 6 Bom 298
137
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss v Govindacharlu AIR 1935
138
Satnam v Bhagwan AIR 1938 PC 216
139
Khettur Chunder v Hari Das 1890 17 cal 557
48
When the transfer is for value or in favour of a stranger, an alienation of the office is bad.
Relinquishment of office of Mahantship cannot be made in favour of person other than
the person next entitled to succeed140.
Remuneration of Pujaris
An arrangement for the remuneration of archakas or pujaris in a temple by a share of the

offerings or collections is a well known practice and is not invalid as a permanent
alienation of trust property141. The right to receive share of offerings independent of any
obligation to render services to idol involves qualification of a personal nature and is
heritable and alienable. Even in the case of alienation of trust property, the judicial
committee has not laid down rule of absolute prohibition.
Founder’s Right
Where a trust has been created, in default of evidence that he has disposed of it otherwise,
the law will vest the trust in the founder and his heirs, unless there has been some usage
or course of dealing or some circumstances to show a different mode of devolution142.
Or unless such a mode would be inconsistent with the purpose of the foundation. Though
the founder is competent to lay down rules to govern the succession to the office of
Shebait or manager, he cannot create any estate unknown or repugnant of Hindu Law,
such an estate tail143. This rule applies with regard to a hereditary office and also to the
office of shebait in North India. The office of a Dharmakarta or manager of a public
temple in South India is however, essentially different.
140
Manadeo v Yaduvanshadeo 1969 ALL 571
141
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss v Govindacharlu (1935) 68 MLJ 295
142
Gossamee v Ruman Lolljee (1889) 16 IA
143
Gnanasambandha v Velu Pandaram (1899) 27 IA 69
49
Where the founder has made a disposition of the trusteeship but the succession to the
office of trustee has wholly failed, it has been held that the right of management reverts
to the heirs of the founder144.
Where the founder shebait gifted the property including the idol to her nephew and
imposed a duty to look after the Seva puja to the idol, it was held that Shebaitship was
conferred upon him not as persona designate but with hereditary right, no ownership in
the property could be transferred by him145. A full Bench of the Madras High Court has
held that it is competent to the founder’s heirs on such failure to create a fresh line of
trustees146. Where no beneficial interest is attached to the office of a trustee it cannot be
regarded as property to which the ordinary rules of succession under Hindu law would
apply. In such cases the heir of the founder or his widow would be competent to make
nomination to the office.
Cypres
Where a clear charitable intention is expressed, it will not be permitted to fail because the
mode, if specified, cannot be executed, but the law will substitute another mode cypres,
that is, as near as possible to the mode specified by the donor. But there can be no
question of an application cypres until it is clearly established that the mode specified by
the donor cannot be carried into effect and that the donor had a general charitable
intention147.
144
Jai Bansi v Chattar (1870) 5 BLR 181
145
Dharam Karan v Shahzad Kunwar 1953 ALL 359
146
Baidyo Gauranga Sahu v Sudevi Mata (1917) 40 Mad 612
147
Bhupati Nath v Ram lal (1910) 37 Cal 128
50
A gift for the “ worship of God “ discloses a general charitable intention and the court
can apply the doctrine of cypres upholding the gift as a public trust, even where it is not
possible to ascertain with any degree of certainly how the donor intended the trust to be
carried out148. The cypres doctrine applies only in case of trusts created by will and not
gift inter vivos. The principle in applying it is that the testator was not in a position to
carry out his object to give the property to charity by dedicating it over again and
secondly, the law always tries not to defeat a bequest to charity149.
The jurisdiction of the courts to act on the cypres doctrine upon the failure of a specific
charitable bequest arises whether the residue be given to charity or not, unless upon the
construction of a will, a direction can be implied that the bequest, if it fails, should go to
the residue150.
Where the grant is to the deity and the income is earmarked for the services for which the
special endowment is created, if there is a surplus which cannot be spent on these
services, it would be a case for the application of the cypres doctrine; a special trustee
cannot claim the surplus151. However when a large property is dedicated and the
religious ceremonies prescribed by the settlor cannot exhaust the entire income, some
portion of the beneficial interest may be construed as undisposed of and to vest as secular
property in the heirs of the settlor152.
Jurisdiction of courts
148
Veluswami Goundan v Dandapanii (1946) 1 MLJ 354, 358
149
Karuppannan (RK) v Tirumalai 1962 Mad 500
150
Mayor of Lyons v Advocate General of Bengal (1876) 3 IA 32
151
Sankarnarayana v HRE Board , Madras (1948) 74 IA230 Mad 319.
152
Jadu Gopal Chakarvarthy v Pannalal Bhowmick 1978 SC 1329
51
The courts have jurisdiction to remove managers of public religious or charitable
endowments and to make them accountable for breaches of trust153. There is however no
hard and fast rule that every manager of a shrine who has arrogated to himself the
position of owner should be removed from his trust, each case must be decided with
reference to its circumstances154.
Legislation
Legislation has provided for safeguarding the maintenance of religious endowment and
for their superintendence and has conferred rights on persons interested to move courts or
special authorities in respect of breaches of trust and mismanagement of such institutions.
Such enactments are the Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1863) and the Charitable and
Religious Trust Act (XIV of 1920).The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920,
enables any person having an interest in any public, religious or charitable trust to apply
to the appropriate court for directions for the examination and auditing of the accounts of
the trusts for a period of three years and for directions to the trustee to furnish him with
particulars relating to the trust.
153
Ajodya Prasad v Sangam Lal 1971 (1) SCWR 352
154
Damodar Bhatji v Bhat Bhogilal (1898) 22 Bom 493
52
Conclusion
The modern Hindu law of religious and charitable endowments is essentially a judge
made law and our courts are still busy in their endowments to develop and interpret the
law of the endowments in our modern context. The legislation too, has its own share
though only at the regional level; the law has not been codified, though we have a
detailed report of the Hindu Religious Endowment Commission. The state legislations
have tried to tackle the problem but it has been able to tackle it only on the fringes. In this
state of affairs there has always been a great temptation to draw freely from the English
law of Charitable trusts. It is submitted that this is a pitfall which must be avoided. If we
would try to understand the Hindu Endowment on the analogy of the English trusts, we
bound to falter. This is so for the simple reason that the endowments are not trusts. The
Hindu notions of what are charitable and religious objects also differ fundamentally from
English notions.
An Endowment comes into existence only when some property or fund is dedicated for
a religious purpose or object.
For the purpose of the creation of an endowment except of course when the endowment
is created by will, writing is not necessary. It the endowment is created by a will, the will
must be in writing and attested by at least two witnesses if the case is governed by
The Indian succession Act. It is not necessary to create a trust for the purposes of creating
an endowment.
Endowment is Irrevocable. When the donor of an endowment has completely divested

himself of the property dedicated he cannot revoke trust or derive any benefits there from
except what has been reserved.
53
In India, trusts are set up for the social causes and approved by the Income Tax
Department, get not only exemption from payment of tax but also the donors to such
trusts can deduct the amount of donation to the trust from their taxable income. The legal
framework in India recognizes activities including "relief of the poor, education, medical
relief, preserving monuments and environment and the advancement of any other object
of general public utility" as charitable purposes. Companies formed under Section 8 of
the Companies Act, 2013 for promoting charity also receive benefits under law including
exemption from various procedural provisions of the Companies Act, either fully or in
part, and are also entitled to such other exemptions that the Central Government may
accord through its orders.
54
Table of Cases
 Ajodya Prasad v Sangam Lal
 Ambelal Makanji vManilal Naraharishanker
 Anatha Krishnana v Chidambaran
 Annasami Pillai v Ramakrishna
 Baba Gurukkal v Commissioner of HR and CE
 Bai Bapi v Jamnadas
 Baidyo Gauranga Sahu v Sudevi Mata
 Bakreshwar v Brajabandhu
 Basanth Singh v Makhan Singh
 Bechu Lal v Oliullah
 Bhupati Nath v Ram lal
 Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v Bisheshwardas
 Bishen Chand v Syed Nadir
 Chanchibai v Ram Charanjee
 Chidambaranatha v Nallasiva
 Commr HR and CE v Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar
 Daisya Pillai v Pattamuthu Mudaliar
 Damodar Bhatji v Bhat Bhogilal
 Deokinandan v Murlidhar
 Dharam Karan v Shahzad Kunwar
 Durga v Chanchal
 Gajanand Maharaj Samsthan v Rama Rao Kasinath
 Gamgadhara Mudali v Doraisami bhattar
 Gangi Reddi v Tammi Reddi
 Gardhan Das v Chunnilal
 Gnanasambandha v Velu Pandaram
 Gossamee v Ruman Lolljee
 Goswami Ranchhoddas
 Goswami v Shaha Ramachodass
 Gouri Shankar V Thakur Das
 Gurucharan Parasad v Krishnandagiri
 Har Narayan v Surja Kunwari
 Hari Singh v Bishan lal
 Heir of PUrushotam Lalji v Collector
 Hooghly v Kishnamund SD
 Idol Murli Manoharji v Gopilal Garg
 Ishwari Bhubaneshwari v Brojo Nath Dey
 Iswar Ram Chandra v Bengal Duars Bank Ltd.
55
 Iswari Bhubaneshwari v Brojo Nath Dey
 Jaafar v Ali
 Jadu Gopal Chakarvarthy v Pannalal Bhowmick
 Jadu Nath v Sitaramji
 Jagadindra Nath v Hemanta Kumari
 Jaggamoni v Nilmoni
 Jai Bansi v Chattar
 Janakiram v koushalyanandan
 Jodhi Rai v Basdeo Prasad
 Kannika Parameswari v Educational Institutions
 Karuppannan (RK) v Tirumalai
 Khettur Chunder v Hari Das
 Knwur Doorganath v Ram Chunder
 Koman Nair v Atchutham Nair
 Kothanda Raja v Paramadesan
 Kumaraswami Asari v Lakshmana Gaunden
 Lakshmindra v Raghvendra
 Lalit Kishore v Lakshmiharayan
 Magniram Sitaram v Kasturbhai
 Mahadeba Devasthanam v Mahadeba
 Mahant Srinivas v Suryanarayana das
 Mahrani Hemanta Kumari v Gauri Shankar Tewari
 Man Mohan Das v Janki Prasad
 Manadeo v Yaduvanshadeo
 Mancharam v Pranshankar
 Manika Vasaka Desikar v Balagopalakrishna
 Manohur Mukerji v Bhupendranath
 Marasomgjswai v Satnani
 Mariappa v Putta Ramayya
 Mathsanna v Kedarnath
 Mayor of Lyons v Advocate General of Bengal
 Morice VBishop of Durham
 Mudden Lal v Komal Bibee
 Murugesam v Manika Vasaka
 Muthu Krishnan v Palani
 Mutt (R S) v Commissioner H R and C E
 Nagarwati Devi v Girijapati Tiwari
 Nagu Reddiar v Banu Reddiar
 Narasi v Balamma
 Narasinghaswami v Singhani
 Narayan Bhagwanta Rao v Gopal Vinayak
 Narayan Swamy v Balasundaram
 Narayana Pillai v Kesava Pillai
 Niladri Sahu v Chaturbhuj Das
 Padmanabha v Ramachandra Rao
 Palam Veeraiah v Praga Tools Coporation
56
 Palaniappa Chetty v Devasikamony
 Parma Nandan v Nihalchand
 Peary mohan Mukherji v Manohar Mukerji
 Phool Chand v Puran Chand
 Promoth Dossee v Radhika Persaud
 Prosunna Kumarii v Golab Chand
 Puran Atal v Darshan Das
 Purna Chandra v Kalipada Roy
 Raghavachary v Narayana.
 Rai Kishore Dasi (Smt) v Official Trustee
 Ram coomar v Jogendra Nath
 Ram Das v Shri Ram Lakshman Janki
 Ram Dhan v Prayag Narain
 Ram Kishore Das Goswamy v Anatha Ram
 Ram Raj Pandi v Ram Balak Singh
 Ram Sarup Dasi v Sahi (S P)
 Raman Lingayya v Commissioner of HR and CE
 Ramanasramam v Commissioner H T and CE
 Ramanathan Chetti v Murugappa Chetti
 Ramanujacharyulu v Pandurangacharyulu
 Ramcharun v Girija Nandani Devi
 Ramtonoo v Ramgopal
 Re Macduff, Macduff v Macduff
 Sankaranarayana v Sri Poovanathaswami Temple
 Sankarnarayana v HRE Board , Madras.
 Sate of Madras v Paripalana Sangham (S S M)
 Satnam v Bhagwan
 Satya Charan v Rudra Nanda.
 Seshacharyulu v Venkatacharyulu
 Snatun Bysack v Juggutsoondree
 Sooniram Ramniranjandoss v Alagu Nachiar Koil
 Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jiew Thakur v Pratapmal Bagaria
 Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew v Kanta Mohan
 Sri Gopala Jeevthakkar v Pravsine
 Sri Mahant Prayag Doss v Govindacharlu
 Sri Vedpureswarar Temple v Sundaresa Gurukkal
 Sundar Singh v Mg Committee
 Sundara Kothanar v Sellam Pellai
 Thackersey Dewraj v Hurbhum Nursey
 Thakur Govind v Susalli.
 Thakurji v Parameswr Dayal
 Tulisram v Ram Prasanna
 Veerappa v Thangachami
 Veluswami Goundan v Dandapani
 Venkateshwara v Venkatesa.
 Venugopal Naidu v Venkat Rayudu Charities
57
 Vibhudapriya v Lakshmindra
 Vidyavaruthi v Balusami
 Yogendranath v Commr of IT
References
Primary sources
1. Religious Endowment act, 1863
2. Religious Societies Act, 1880
3. Charitable Endowments Act, 1890
4. Charitable and Religious Endowments Act, 1920
5. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Secondary Sources
1. Hindu law of Religions and Charitable Trust, Mayne
2. Hindu Law - Mulla
3. Hindu Law - Paras Diwan
58

Hindu Endowments-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindu Endowments-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindu Endowments-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HINDU ENDOWMENTS

SUBMITTED TO: PREPARED BY:

A Project work on a topic with such complications is a tedious task and

The essentials of a Valid Endowment are:-

Ishta and Purta

The definition of Charitable purpose in the Charitable Endowments Act (VI of

Public and Private Endowments

Religious endowments are of two kinds:-

Valid Religious Endowments

Raising a tomb on the remains of an ancestor, an ordinary person is not recognized as

Examples of bequest of Charitable Endowments are:-

Gifts void for Uncertainity

DEDICATION HOW EFFECTED

RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES NOT NECESSARY

In order to create a valid dedication a trust is not required. An appropriation of property

In Vidyavaruthi v Balusami Ayyar, the Privy Council observed: “It is also to be

When a deed was in favour of a person as a manager of a particular temple, without

To constitute a trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious

An allocation of specific property or fund to charity is essential both for effecting an

Where the dedication is of the complete character, the property comprised in it

Position of Manager of a temple/Dharamkarta/ Shebait

The position of a dharamkarta of a public temple is not that of a shebait or pujari of a

Shebaitship in its true conception therefore involves two ideas:-

The position of a shebait, dharmakarta or manager of a temple or other religious

The right of a shebait or of a priest to offerings made to an idol naturally depends

A debutter estate may therefore be mortgaged to secure repayment of money

Benefit of the Estate

In Palaniappa Chetty v Sreemath Deivasikamony, Lord Atkinson observed: “

It is the duty of dharamkarta or manager or shebait to maintain the customary usages

Liability on account – A shebait, manager, or dharamkarta is bound to keep the true

Position of an Asthal and the head of the Math

To set aside alienations

A suit by the manager of a religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of

In Vidyavaruthi v Balusami and in Ponnam bala Desikar v Periyanan Chetti, it was

An alienation of endowed property made by a manager or dharmakarta of a religious or

Creditors remedies for unsecured loans

Decrees against Managers and Heads

A decree passed in a suit against a shebait, manager, or dharmakarta, as representing an

Devolution of Mahant’s Office

The devolution of the office of shebait of an idol or of dharamkarta of a temple or

Alienation of a Religious Office

An arrangement for the remuneration of archakas or pujaris in a temple by a share of the

Endowment is Irrevocable. When the donor of an endowment has completely divested

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.