Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1917.

Attorney(S)

C.V Anantakrishna Ayyar, A.V Viswanatha Sastri and S. Rangachari for appellants.
T.R Venkatarama Sastri for first and second respondents.

Judges

Seshagiri Ayyar
Phillips, JJ.

Acts

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Seshagiri Ayyar, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This was a suit to recover property concerning approximately 40 cents of land which, in 1903 on the Sapindikarnam day of his father's death, the donor (father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3) purportedly gave to a temple. There was no writing evidencing the gift. The donor was a trustee of the temple and during his lifetime treated himself as a lessee of the temple, giving the income from the land to the temple. After his death, the defendants refused to deliver possession of the land or to give the income.

The defendants asserted two main defences: (1) that because the gift was not reduced to writing and registered, no title passed to the temple; and (2) that the donor, being a member of a joint Hindu family at the time of the gift, was not competent to dispose of ancestral property in that manner. The courts below rejected those contentions. The matter came before this Court in a Second Appeal where counsel relied on prior authorities in support of the defendants' contentions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a dedication (a religious offering/donation) made in the customary ceremonial form (here, on the Sapindikarnam day), without a written, registered instrument, operates to divest the donor of rights and vest title in the temple.
Whether a donor who is a member (manager) of a joint Hindu family is competent to make such a dedication of ancestral or family property for the performance of religious obsequies.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' (or Respondents') Contentions as presented in the opinion

The gift was not in writing and was not registered; therefore, no title passed to the temple.
The donor was a member of a joint Hindu family and, on that ground, was not competent to dispose of what was asserted to be ancestral property by making such a gift.

Arguments Raised in the Second Appeal (as reported)

Reliance was placed strongly upon Mannu Lal v. Radhakishenji for the contention that absence of writing/registration rendered the gift ineffective to pass title.
Reliance was placed upon Muthusami Pillai v. Dorasami Pillai to support the contention that the donor (as a manager/member of a joint family) lacked competence to make the disposition.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mannu Lal v. Radhakishenji	Invoked for the proposition that absence of writing/registration prevents transfer of title.	The Court records that the appellant relied strongly on this decision; it notes that the Allahabad High Court did not discuss the point and that there are observations in other High Courts and this Court inconsistent with Allahabad's view. The Court examined the nature of dedication and concluded that the ceremonial dedication in the present case operated to divest the donor despite absence of writing.
Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi	Referenced in discussion of an idol as a juridical person capable of owning property.	The Court noted the decision's observations about an idol being treated as a juridical person, but used it to distinguish modes of transfer (trustees, idol, ceremonial dedication) and to show that not all dedications must conform to Transfer of Property Act formalities.
Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra	Used for the proposition that, under Hindu juridical notions, there can be no gift in favour of the gods and that property dedicated is extra commercium; discussion that donor is divested of rights and the king (or custodian) protects such property.	The Court relied on the exposition in this case to support the view that ceremonial dedications divest the donor and that the Transfer of Property Act formalities do not necessarily govern such dedications made to the universal or public benefit.
Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram	Referenced as an authority illustrating the conception of dedication and its effect in other jurisprudential systems.	The Court cited West, J.'s observations in this case to show the cross-system recognition that property dedicated for religious purposes may be treated as extra commercium.
Pallayya v. ???	Referred to in passing as embodying the same substantive idea (that certain dedications operate to divest the donor).	The opinion notes that the idea underlying the present conclusion is substantially the same as expressed in this decision; the Court used it to support its reasoning. (The printed opinion records the name incompletely as shown.)
Muthusami Pillai v. Dorasami Pillai	Relied upon for the contention that a manager/member might lack competence to give family or ancestral property.	The Court examined this reliance and, in conjunction with other authorities and Mitakshara texts, concluded that a manager is competent to make donations for pious purposes such as obsequies; thus the authority did not prevail to defeat the present gift.
Raghunath Prasad (Defendant) v. Gobind Prasad (Plaintiff)	Quoted in connection with the proposition that managers may make dispositions for pious purposes; it refers to earlier authority.	The Court noted that this judgment was quoted without disapproval in subsequent decisions and formed part of the chain of authority supporting manager competence for pious dispositions.
Gopal Chand Pande v. Babu Kunwar Singh	Authority relied upon for the statement that a manager may give to deities (or for pious purposes) within his competence.	The Court traced the doctrinal support in this decision back to Vyavastha of the Pandit and Mitakshara texts, using it to sustain the proposition that managers may make pious gifts in certain circumstances.
Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussamat Babooee Munraj Koonweree	Quoted for approval of the Mitakshara proposition that an individual may make donations for pious purposes.	The Court relied on this quotation as part of the textual and judicial support showing that pious obsequies fall within the manager's competence.
Baba v. Timma (Full Bench)	Explains that where a special text of Hindu law favours a disposition by a manager, Courts are bound to give effect to it.	The Court cited this Full Bench authority to support the view that textual Mitakshara rules in favour of manager competence must be given effect.
Hanmantapa v. Jivubai	States the principle that Courts must give effect to special textual rules of Hindu law.	The Court invoked this principle in assessing the manager's competence under Mitakshara texts.
Rathnam v. Sivasubramania	Concerned with an offering (a silver vehicle) presented to a temple on an ordinary occasion; cited for the proposition that not every offering qualifies as a pious disposal under Mitakshara placitums.	The Court distinguished that case on its facts, noting the present case involved obsequies and thus fell within the Mitakshara rule, whereas Rathnam concerned an ordinary present of doubtful coverage.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in two linked strands of analysis corresponding to the two main contentions.

First, on the question whether absence of a written, registered instrument defeats the alleged gift to the temple, the Court began by analysing the nature of a Hindu dedication. It described the customary ceremonial mode of dedication (for example, taking a tulasi leaf with water and offering property on occasions of death or marriage), and emphasized that such offerings are customarily not made in writing or before trustees; indeed, a writing might detract from the sanctity. The Court referred to Hindu texts (including a passage from the Chandogya Upanishad and the common religious formula) to show that such dedications are intended to benefit the public or the universal soul rather than any specific sentient recipient.

The Court then considered different legal modes by which property may be given to temple-related objects or institutions: (a) giving to trustees (where the Transfer of Property Act provisions must be complied with); (b) giving in writing to the idol (where, if in writing, registration questions may arise); and (c) the customary ceremonial dedication (the mode in issue). The Court reasoned that where the true intent of the dedication is not to give property to a sentient being, the chapter of the Transfer of Property Act relating to gifts does not necessarily apply (and section 5 was not attracted). It relied on doctrinal statements in Hindu texts and on prior judicial exposition (notably from Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha and others) that property devoted to religious purposes is treated as extra commercium and that dedication divests the donor of rights, the ultimate protection being public/state custodianship. From this analysis the Court concluded that the ceremonial dedication on the Sapindikarnam day divested the donor of his rights and vested them in the temple despite the absence of a written, registered instrument in the orthodox Transfer of Property Act form.

Second, on the competence of the donor as a member/manager of a joint Hindu family, the Court examined the Mitakshara texts and a line of decisions which recognize that even a single individual may, in seasons of distress or for pious purposes, conclude donations or other dispositions of immovable property for the family's benefit. The Court noted that Mitakshara placitums 28 and 29 (chapter I, section I) expressly contemplate pious purposes such as obsequies of the father, and cited supporting decisions (including Gopal Chand Pande, Hunoomanpersaud Panday, Baba v. Timma and Hanmantapa v. Jivubai) to the effect that where special textual provisions permit a manager to make such dispositions, Courts must give effect to those texts. The Court distinguished authorities that involved ordinary presents (e.g., Rathnam v. Sivasubramania) and confined the rule to cases that fall within the textual prescriptions (such as obsequies). Concluding that the present facts fell squarely within those textual rules, the Court held that the donor, as manager in the performance of religious obsequies, was competent to make the gift.

On these bases — (a) that ceremonial dedication divested the donor and vested the temple; and (b) that the manager had competence to make a pious disposition for obsequies — the Court rejected the two main defences relied upon by the respondents/appellant in the Second Appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.

Implications:

The Court held that a ceremonial dedication made in the customary Hindu form on a death-obsequies occasion (Sapindikarnam day) divested the donor of his rights and conferred beneficial rights on the temple even though there was no written, registered instrument in the form used for ordinary gifts under the Transfer of Property Act.
The Court also held that a manager/member of a Hindu joint family is competent to make such a gift when it is made for pious purposes such as obsequies of the father, drawing on Mitakshara placitums and supporting authorities; the present dedication fell within that rule.
Direct effect on the parties: the judgment below (which rejected the two main defences) is affirmed; the dedication is treated as effective to vest the temple with the property and the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
The opinion does not state that it is laying down a novel statutory rule beyond applying and reconciling existing textual and judicial authorities; it rests the decision on interpretation of Hindu customary/doxastic notions of dedication and on recognized textual rules regarding manager competence.

End of summary. All information in this summary is drawn exclusively from the provided opinion text.

Show full summary ...

Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetty

Seshagiri Ayyar, J.:— This is a suit to recover property. The father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 gave about 40 cents of land to a temple in 1903 on the Sapindikarnam day of his father's death. There was no writing to evidence it. The donor was himself a trustee of the temple. During his lifetime he regarded himself as a lessee of the temple and gave it the income from the land. After his death, the defendants refused either to give the income or to deliver possession of the land.

There were two main defences. One is, that as the gift was not in writing and registered, no title passed to the temple. The other is that it was not competent to the donor who was a member of a joint Hindu family at the time of the gift to dispose of ancestral property in the way he did. The Courts below rejected these contentions.

In Second Appeal Mr. Anantakrishna Ayyar relied strongly upon Mannu Lal v. Radhakishenji(1) for the first contention. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court do not discuss the question, nor do they refer to the decisions of the other High Courts bearing on it. It is true that the exact point now raised was not decided before, but there are observations in the judgments of this Court and of the Calcutta High Court which are not consistent with the view taken in Allahabad. Before examining the cases, we shall consider the nature of a dedication as understood by Hindus and a few texts of Hindu law bearing on it. A dedication, offering, or oblation as it is called, is generally made on occasions of death or marriage in a Hindu family. The usual form is to take a leaf of the tulasi plant in hand and with water offer the property in the presence of the persons assembled. It is not usually done before the temple, or in the presence of the trustees. The occasion is such that no writing will be thought of. We are not sure that a writing will not be regarded as detracting from the sanctity of the proceeding. The question is whether such a process is ineffectual to pass property. In the Chandogya Upanishad, this is what is stated regarding the persons who benefit by a religious offering:

“He who presents an oblation, has made an offering in all worlds in all beings, in all souls… As in the world hungry infants press round their mother, so do all beings await the holy oblations. They await the holy oblations.”

The usual religious formula pronounced by every Hindu male or female, on the occasion of any offering or feeding is that it is made to God;

‘He is watching within all beings’

Consequently a dedication of the kind we have referred to is intended to benefit the public in whom the spirit of God is said to reside. It is to the universal soul which pervades all beings. These offerings are not to any specific person, real or artificial. The learned vakil for the appellant referred to the observations in Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi, where an idol was spoken of as a juridical person. It was pointed out in Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra*(3) that, in an ideal sense, an idol is a person capable of owning property. A person can make a gift to the trustees on behalf of an idol or he can make offerings in the temple to the idol. In these cases, the idol can and does own the property. But it does not follow from it that a dedication must be in the form prescribed by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. There are various modes of giving property to a temple. One is by giving it to the trustees. In that case the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act must be complied with. Another is by dedication to the idol itself. If this is in writing, it is open to argument that by virtue of the Registration Act no title would pass unless the document is registered. The third mode is the one with which we are concerned and which is observed on occasions of marriage or death. Although the donor may intend that the embodiment of the universal soul worshiped in a particular place should have the benefit of the dedication, the words employed by him and the object aimed at by him are what has been indicated in the Chandogya Upanishad and in the formula we have referred to. In these cases, the gift is not to any sentient being, real or artificial, so as to attract section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The property thus dedicated ceases to belong to the donor. That undoubtedly is the Hindu idea. After an elaborate review of the Hindu texts, Mr. Justice Mookerjee says in Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra:

“It is conclusively established from these authorities that according to strict Hindu juridical notions there can be no gift in favour of the gods. We, are not concerned now with the philosophical reason for this position, and it is needless to inquire whether it is due to the fact that in the earliest time physical objects were deified, and could not, therefore, be very well supposed to be capable of acceptance of a gift, or to the fact that the deity was conceived as a being to whom a mortal could not aspire to make a gift, but could only content himself with a dedication of things for acceptance.”

In one of the early texts (Vyavahara Mayukka, chapter IV, section 7, placitum 23), it is said, quoting Katyayana, that wealth which has been assigned for religious purposes is extra commercium. In the Calcutta case already referred to, the same, learned Judge deals with this matter in these terms:

“If therefore, a dedication is made in favour of the deity, what is the position? The owner is divested of his rights. The deity cannot accept. In whom does the property vest? The answer is that the king is the custodian of all such property. Vijnaneswara in the Mitakshara (Vyavabara Adbyaya, verse 186) lays it down that one of the duties of the king is the protection of the Devagriha and Aparaditya and Mitramisra in their commentaries on the same subject lay down the rule in the same manner. In the Sukraniti, chapter IV, verse 19, stress is laid upon this as one of the primary duties of kings. The true Hindu conception of dedication for the establishment of the image of the deity and for the maintenance thereof is that the owner divests himself of all rights in the property; the King, as the ultimate protector of the State, undertakes the supervision of all endowments. There is no acceptance on the part of the deity, but, from the dedication, religious merit and spiritual benefit accrue to the founder and material benefit accrues to the person in charge of the worship and to the creatures of God.”

See also West, J., in Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram. This conception of the effect of dedication is common to many systems of jurisprudence. In the Roman law property dedicated to religious purposes was extra commercium. See Ulpian's Frag XXII, section 6. In Muhammadan law dedications of this kind are not uncommon. It seems to us, therefore, that to hold that, unless a donation for religious purposes conforms to the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, it would be invalid would be to introduce an idea foreign at least to Hindu notions of religious donation. Of course, if the statute law imposes such a restriction, it must be obeyed. But the Transfer of Property Act is not exhaustive of all modes of transfer, and, as we pointed out, if the true intent of a dedication is not to give property to a sentient being, the chapter relating to gifts can have in application to gifts by dedication. This is substantially the idea that underlies the decision in Pallayya v. ???. For these reasons we are of opinion that the dedication on the Sapindikarnam day divested the donor of his rights and conferred them on the temple.

On the second question reliance was placed by the learned vakil for the appellant on Muthusami Pillai v. Dorasami Pillai. The occasion of the gifts is not mentioned in the judgment. The learned Judges quote without disapproval Raghunath Prasad…(Defendant); v. Gobind Prasad…(Plaintiff).*(4). That judgment refers to Gopal Chand Pande v. Babu Kunwar Singh(5) as authority. On turning to this latter decision, it is seen that the Vyvastha of the Pandit on which he conclusion was based refers to Hindu texts and Puranic slokas for the broad, proposition that a gift to Vishnu and other deities by the manager of the family is within his competence. In Mitakshara, chapter I, section I, placitum 28 it is stated:

“Even a single individual may conclude a donation, mortgage, or sale, of immovable property, during a season of distress for the sake of the family, and especially for pious purposes.”

In Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussamat Babooee Munraj Koonweree this proposition is quoted with approval. In placitum 29 the expression ‘pious purposes’ is explained thus ‘such as the obsequies of the father, etc.’ That explanation would undoubtedly cover the present case. It was pointed out by a Full Bench of this Court in Baba v. Timma that if there is a special text of Hindu law in favour of a disposition by a manager, Courts are bound to give effect to it in Hanmantapa v. Jivubai the same principle was enunciated. Having regard to these authorities and to the text of Mitakshara, it seems clear that at any rate in the performance of religious obsequies the manager of a Hindu family is competent to give property to a temple. In Rathnam v. Sivasubramania a silver vehicle was presented to the temple not on any occasion of death or marriage but as a present on an ordinary occasion. It is doubtful whether such an offering can be said to be one for religious purposes, and whether it would be covered by placitums 28 and 29 of chapter I, section 1, of Mitakshara. The present case is clearly within the rule enunciated in those texts. Other texts may be quoted in support of this view. But it is not necessary to multiply citations. We hold that it is not beyond the competence of a Hindu manager to make a gift of the kind we are dealing with. For these reasons, the Second Appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

N.R

Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetty

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Seshagiri Ayyar, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' (or Respondents') Contentions as presented in the opinion

Arguments Raised in the Second Appeal (as reported)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetty

Comments