- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Official Trustee Of ... v. Corporation Of Madras .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, the Official Trustee of Madras who manages a bhajana mandiram (a building set apart for public worship where people gather to sing devotional songs), claimed exemption from property tax under Section 101(a) of the Madras City Municipal Act. The bhajana mandiram was admittedly set apart for public worship but was occasionally let out for marriage ceremonies for which a small sum was charged; the sums collected were used to meet the mandiram's expenses. The lower Court held that Section 101(a) did not apply because, although the building was set apart for public worship, it was not "actually so used" at the times when marriages were celebrated, nor could it be said that it was "used for no other purpose." The Official Trustee appealed, arguing that the exemption should have been allowed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 101(a) of the Madras City Municipal Act (and the corresponding Section 83(1)(a) of the District Municipalities Act) applies to a building set apart for public worship but occasionally used for non-worship purposes (marriages) and where a small sum is collected for such use.
- Whether occasional non-worship use (here, marriages) of a building otherwise set apart for public worship removes the building from the statutory exemption which requires the building to be "actually so used" or "used for no other purpose."
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The bhajana mandiram is a building set apart for public worship and therefore falls within the exemption provided by Section 101(a).
- It was argued (through Mr. Venuugopalachari, the appellant's counsel) that the element of profit is not the guiding factor in determining exemption; the key question is whether the building can be regarded as "used for no other purpose" or "actually so used."
- The appellant relied on the decision in Municipal Council of Tirupathi v. Sree Mahant Prayag Dasjee Varu (1914) 27 M.L.J. 231 to support an interpretation favorable to exemption in certain mixed-use situations.
Lower Court / Respondent Position (as reflected in the opinion)
- The lower Court held that Section 101(a) did not apply because the building, though set apart for public worship, was not actually used for worship at the times marriages were celebrated.
- The lower Court also held that the building could not be said to be "used for no other purpose" because it was used for marriages—i.e., a purpose other than public worship.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam (1936) M.W.N. 1088; later reported (1940) 2 M.L.J. 897 : I.L.R. (1941) Mad. 322 | Established that exemption under the comparable statutory provision applies only where a place is actually used for public worship or is used for no other purpose; if the place is used for a purpose other than public worship (including commercial use), the exemption does not apply. | The court treated this decision as dispositive for the present question, holding that because the bhajana mandiram was occasionally used for marriages (a non-worship purpose), the statutory conditions for exemption were not satisfied. |
| Municipal Council, Srirangam v. Srirangam Devasthanam (1936) M.W.N. 1088 (single Judge) | Earlier single-judge decision on a similar point (details in the opinion are limited); the Bench in Palni dissented from this single-judge view. | The court noted that the Palni Bench dissented from this earlier single-judge decision and did not follow it; it treated the later Bench decision in Palni as controlling. |
| Municipal Council of Tirupathi v. Sree Mahant Prayag Dasjee Varu (1914) 27 M.L.J. 231 | Addressed whether buildings used to stable devasthanam horses (used for temple processions) and sometimes used by pilgrims were within the exemption; the judgment treated uses clearly connected to processions as part of public worship and extended exemption in the circumstances of that case. | The appellant relied on this decision. The court observed its principles but treated the later Palni decision as controlling for the present case and did not allow the Tirupathi authority to alter the conclusion that occasional non-worship use negated exemption. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by citing the exact statutory text of Section 101(a) of the Madras City Municipal Act and noting that Section 83(1)(a) of the District Municipalities Act is in identical terms. The statutory exemption is limited to buildings "set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose."
The court observed the critical factual points: it was not alleged that public worship was taking place in the bhajana mandiram at the times when marriages were celebrated; and the building was admittedly used for a purpose other than public worship (marriages). On that basis the court concluded the statutory condition was not satisfied.
The court relied primarily on Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam, where a devasthanam's power house supplied energy for temple lighting but also sold energy commercially to shops and a hotel. The Palni Bench held that exemption did not apply where the property was used for commercial purposes as well as for the temple; the condition of being "actually so used" for public worship or "used for no other purpose" was not fulfilled in such mixed-use circumstances. The present case was treated as falling squarely within that principle.
The court rejected any emphasis on the presence or absence of profit as the decisive factor, observing (as advanced by the appellant's counsel) that profit is not the guiding consideration. Instead, the statutory language requires a focus on the nature of the use: whether the building is actually used for public worship or is used for no other purpose. The court held that performance of marriages is not part of public worship and that allowing private marriages in the bhajana mandiram—albeit occasionally and for a small sum—means the building was used for a purpose other than public worship.
The court considered the earlier authority relied upon by the appellant (Municipal Council of Tirupathi v. Sree Mahant Prayag Dasjee Varu) but observed that, irrespective of how that decision interpreted "public worship," the later Bench decision in Palni governs the present question. Applying that controlling authority, the court concluded the statutory exemption did not apply.
Holding and Implications
Final Holding: The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Implications:
- Direct effect on the parties: The appellant's claim for exemption under Section 101(a) was rejected; the property is not entitled to the exemption on the facts presented (occasional non-worship use for marriages).
- Broader legal implications: The opinion applies and follows the earlier Bench decision in Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam to the effect that mixed use (use for purposes other than public worship) negates the statutory exemption. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying that controlling authority.
This summary is based exclusively on the information contained in the provided opinion.
1. The point which arises for decision in this case is whether Section 101, Clause (a) of the Madras City Municipal Act applies to this case. The appellant claimed exemption from taxation under Section 101(a) in respect of a building which is admittedly set apart for public worship, being a bhajana mandiram, that is a place where a number of people gather and sing devotional songs in chorus. Occasionally this building was given to other persons for performing marriages and a small sum was collected from the marriage parties and the sum so collected was utilised for meeting the expenses of the bhajana mandiram. The lower Court held that Section 101 (a) did not apply on the ground that though the building was a place set apart for public purpose it could not be said that it was either actually so used or used for no other purpose. The present appeal is filed by the Official Trustee of Madras who is in charge of the bhajana mandiram and the argument is advanced that the exemption claimed ought to have been upheld.
2. Section 101 (a) runs thus:
The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax:
(a) (places) set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose.
Section 83, Clause (1) (a) of the District Municipalities Act, so far as the point under consideration is concerned, is word for word the same. That section runs thus:
The following buildings and lands shall be exempt from the property tax:
(a) places set apart for public worship and either actually so used or used for no other purpose.
It is not alleged that during the time when the marriages were being celebrated in the building bhajana or public worship was actually going on. Nor can it be said that the building was used for no other purpose. It was used for a purpose other than that of public worship. In my view this question is really concluded by the decision in the Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam (1936) M.W.N. 1088. In that case the Palni devasthanam built a power house and installed an electric plant at the foot of the hill belonging to it. The entire hill had been admittedly set apart for public worship. The devasthanam utilised the electric energy from the power house for lighting the temple and the approaches to it and also supplied it at profitable rates to persons who kept shops and a hotel on the hill. Exemption was claimed on behalf of the devasthanam and it was contended that it was a place set apart for public worship and used for that purpose. The learned Judges held that the property tax was properly levied under Section 83 (1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act and that exemption is allowed for places set apart for public worship and used for that purpose and for places set apart for public worship but not actually in use. If therefore a place is used for a purpose other than public worship, it does not fall within the exemption. They added that as the power house was used for commercial purposes as well as purposes of public worship, the conditions of the exemption were not fulfilled. They dissented from an earlier decision of a single Judge of this Court in Municipal Council, Srirangam v. Srirangam Devasthanam (1936) M.W.N. 1088. As Mr. Venuugopalachari, the learned advocate for the appellant, rightly urges, the element of profit is not the guiding factor. The only point to be considered is whether the expression "used for no other purpose " can be applied to a case like the present where though the building was admittedly set apart for public worship, it was actually being used occasionally for marriages being performed in it. Performance of marriages cannot in any sense of the term be said to be part of public worship. Private individuals perform the marriage and pay some amount for being allowed the use of this building for performing the marriage. There is no question of public worship during the time. Therefore it is not a case where it could be said that the place was actually used for public worship, nor can it be said that it was not used for any purpose other than public worship. Mr. Venugopalachari relies upon the decision in Municipal Council of Tirupathi v. Sree Mahant Prayag Dasjee Varu (1914) 27 M.L.J. 231. There the question was whether a certain building used for stabling devasthanam coaches and horses which were employed in carrying drums in temple processions or allowed for the use of respectable pilgrims to whom such honour was shown by the Mahant was exempt from property tax. In so far as the buildings were used for stabling the devasthanam horses which were employed in processions of the deity there could be no question of taxation. The user was admittedly part of public worship, namely, temple processions. Then the next point was whether in so far as the horses were allowed for the use of pilgrims to whom honour was shown by the Mahant it was user which took it out of the exemption. Rightly or wrongly the learned Judges held that that also came within the first portion of Section 83. Though the learned Judges used the words "public purpose," we have to take it that really what was meant was that that was also part of public worship. At any rate the section is clear that exemption can be claimed only where a building was used not only for public worship, but was actually so used or used for no other purpose. Whether the interpretation put upon the expression " public worship " in the decision is right or wrong, we have the later decision of a Bench of this Court in Municipal Council, Palni v. Sri Dhandayuthapani Devasthanam (1940) 2 M.L.J. 897 : I.L.R. (1941) Mad. 322.
3. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Alert