# CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS v. NARAYANA AYYANGAR AND OTHERS·

- **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 168
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-02-24
- **Bench:** K. Subba Rao, J. C. Shah, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/charitable-endowments-v-narayana-ayyangar-and-others-3390
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of ·
1951, s. 6(13}--'Religious Charity' meaning of-Samaradhanai Fund
for the purpo•se of feeding Brahmins attending the celebration of a
festival at a temple, whether such charity.
A Samaradhanai Fund was started for the purpose of
feeding
Brahmin pilgrims attending Sri Venkatachalapathiswami shrine at
village Gunaseelam (in Madras State) on the occasion of Rathotsavam festival. On the enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endo'.'ments Act 19 of 1951 the Deputy Commissioner
of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments initial•-:! proceedings
under s. 57(d) of the Act and held that the a!oresaid fund was a
'religious charity' within the meaning of s. 6(13) of the Act. His
order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Trustees of the Fund
then filed a suit to set aside the ocder of the Commissioner contending that the Samaradhanai Fund was neither a public charity nor a
'religious charity'. In s. 6(13), 'religious
charity' is defined as a
"public charity associated with a Hindu festival .or observance of
B
c
D
a religious character, whether it be conected with a math or temple
or not". The trial court decided against the trustees but the High
E
Court held in their favour. According to the High Court feeding
the Brahmins was a public charity but it was not a 'religious charity
in as much as those who conducted the
celebration
of
the
Rathotsavam at the shrine had no control
over the feeding of
Brahmins out of the SamaTl!ldhanai Fund. On appeal to the Supreme
Court by the Commissioner, with special leave.
HELD: Feeding of Brahmins out of the Samaradhanai fund was
associated with the celel:ration of the Rathotsavam at the Venkatachalapathiswami shrine.
The expression "associated" in s. 13 of Act 19 of 1951 is used
having regard to the history of the legislation the scheme and objects
of the Act and the context in which it occurs, as meaning "being
connected with" or
11in relation to". The expression does nOt import
any control by the authorit!es who manage or administer the festival.
There are many Hindu festivals which are celebrated by the public
gener_a!ly without any connection with any temple or math. The
definition of "religious charities" includes such general festivals and
observances. It cannot be said that there must always be a set of
persons who control the cel~bration of a festival or an ot-servar.CP
f171 D-Gl
Nor can it be contended that the expression "associated with a
Hindu festival or observance of a religious character" in the definition of "religious charity" implies that the public charity must be
an integral part of the Hindu religious festival or observance. There
is nothing in the Act which indicates any such intention on the part
of the legislature. [171 H]
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICl10N: Civil Appeal No. 844 of
1963.
r
G
H
A
B
COl4MISSIONEll V. NARAYANA (Shah, J.)
169
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree date
November 1, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 199
of 1957.
A. J{anganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent
Nos. I and 2.

## Text

168
COMMISSIONER, MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND
A
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS .
v.
NARAYANA AYYANGAR AND OTHERS·
February 24, 1965
(K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.]
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of ·
1951, s. 6(13}--'Religious Charity' meaning of-Samaradhanai Fund
for the purpo•se of feeding Brahmins attending the celebration of a
festival at a temple, whether such charity.
A Samaradhanai Fund was started for the purpose of
feeding
Brahmin pilgrims attending Sri Venkatachalapathiswami shrine at
village Gunaseelam (in Madras State) on the occasion of Rathotsavam festival. On the enactment of the Madras Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endo'.'ments Act 19 of 1951 the Deputy Commissioner
of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments initial•-:! proceedings
under s. 57(d) of the Act and held that the a!oresaid fund was a
'religious charity' within the meaning of s. 6(13) of the Act. His
order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Trustees of the Fund
then filed a suit to set aside the ocder of the Commissioner contending that the Samaradhanai Fund was neither a public charity nor a
'religious charity'. In s. 6(13), 'religious
charity' is defined as a
"public charity associated with a Hindu festival .or observance of
B
c
D
a religious character, whether it be conected with a math or temple
or not". The trial court decided against the trustees but the High
E
Court held in their favour. According to the High Court feeding
the Brahmins was a public charity but it was not a 'religious charity
in as much as those who conducted the
celebration
of
the
Rathotsavam at the shrine had no control
over the feeding of
Brahmins out of the SamaTl!ldhanai Fund. On appeal to the Supreme
Court by the Commissioner, with special leave.
HELD: Feeding of Brahmins out of the Samaradhanai fund was
associated with the celel:ration of the Rathotsavam at the Venkatachalapathiswami shrine.
The expression "associated" in s. 13 of Act 19 of 1951 is used
having regard to the history of the legislation the scheme and objects
of the Act and the context in which it occurs, as meaning "being
connected with" or
11in relation to". The expression does nOt import
any control by the authorit!es who manage or administer the festival.
There are many Hindu festivals which are celebrated by the public
gener_a!ly without any connection with any temple or math. The
definition of "religious charities" includes such general festivals and
observances. It cannot be said that there must always be a set of
persons who control the cel~bration of a festival or an ot-servar.CP
f171 D-Gl
Nor can it be contended that the expression "associated with a
Hindu festival or observance of a religious character" in the definition of "religious charity" implies that the public charity must be
an integral part of the Hindu religious festival or observance. There
is nothing in the Act which indicates any such intention on the part
of the legislature. [171 H]
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICl10N: Civil Appeal No. 844 of
1963.
r
G
H
A
B
COl4MISSIONEll V. NARAYANA (Shah, J.)
169
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree date
November 1, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 199
of 1957.
A. J{anganadham Chetty and A. V. Rangam, for the appellant.
A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri and R. Thiagarajan, for respondent
Nos. I and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, J. Venkatarama Iyengar, Kastliuri Iyengar and Ranga
Iyengar, residents of the village Kariainanikam in Tiruchirappalli
District, with the aid of contributions, subscriptions and donations
0
set up a Samaradhanai Fund for feeding Brahmin pilgrims attending Sri Venkatachalapathiswami shrine at village Gunaseelam on
<he occasion of Rathotsavam festival. Between the years 1936 and
1940 seven acres of land were purchased for Rs. I 0,500 to provide
a permanent income for the Fund. It was found that the expenses
incurred for the Rathotsavam festival did not exhaust the entire
D income and the balance was utilised for Vanabhojanam in
Kariamanikam village in the month of K artigai and on the Dwadesi
following Vaikunta Egadesi day.
The President, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Board, sought to levy for the years 1351 to 1354 F asli contributions
E
under s. 69 of Madras Act 2 of 1927 in respect of the Fund. But
in Suit No. 297 of 1947 of the file of the District Court at Tiruchi·
rappalli that claim was disallowed. The District Court held that
the charity was not a "specific endowment" within the meaning
of Act 2 of 1927. After the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 19 of 1951 was enacted, the Deputy ComF
missioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments initiated
a fresh proceeding under s. 57(d) of that Act and held that the
Samardhanai Fund was a "religious charity" within the meaning
of s. 6(13) of the Act. Against that order an appeal was carried
by the trustees of the Fund to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious
and C~arti~ble Endo~en~s. The C?~missioner held that feeding
G Brahmms m connect10n with the rehg1ous festival of Hindus was
a public charity and also a religious charity within the meaning
of s. 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of 1951.
.
The trustees of the Fund .then instituted Suit No. 181 of 1954
m. the Court of the Subordmate Judge. Tiruchirappalli to set
aside ~he order of the. Commiss!oner on the plea that the SamarH
dha~ai Fund "".as ~ pnvate charity not associated with any Hindu
festiyal or service m a temple .and was not religious charity or a
specific endowment or a public charity. and that it could in no
m~nner be.c~me subject t~ control of th~ Commissioner, Madras
Hmdu Rehg10us and Charity Endowments. T)le suit was resisted
by t~~ Commissioner. ?ontendinll th.at the Fund was held and
admm1stered. for a reh&1ous cha_rity viz. feeding Brahmin pilgrims
on the occasion of a Hmdu festival.
The Subordinate Judge held
170
:-:.U11RE1t1.E
COURT
Hf<;pon:r:-;
[1965] 3 s.o.:a.
that the Fund was a public charity and that it was also "a religious
A
charity" within the meaning of s. 6(13) of the Act, the charity
being associated with the Hindu festival of Rat lwtsavam at the
Gunaseclam temple.
In appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit filed by the trustee;, the High Court
of Madras held that the Samardhanai Fund was a public charity
within the meaning_ of s. 6(13) of the Act, but not being associated
B
with any Hindu festival or observance of a religious character it was
not a "religious charity" and the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to bring it under his control. The High Court accordingly
allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the trustees. With
special leave, the Commissioner has appealed to this Court.
The only question which falls to be determined in this appeal
C
is whether on the facts found by the Court of First Instance and
~onfirmed by the High Court, the Samardhanai Fund is a "religious
charity" within the meaning of s. 6(13) of Madras Act 19 of 1951.
Clause (13) of s. 6 defines "religious charity" as meaning "a public
charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious
character, whether it be conn~cted with a math or temple or not".
D
The definition prescribes two conditions which go to constitute a
religious charity: there must be a public charity and that charity
must be associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. If these be fulfilled, a puBlic charity will be a
religious charity, even if it is not connected with a math or temple.
The Subordinate Judge held on the evidence .that the "charity in
E
question is a feeding charity conducted during the ten days of the
Rathotsavam in 'the Prasanna Venkatachallapnthiswami temple
in Gunaseelam in the month of Purattasi. Only Brahmins are fed
and not other community people. There· are similar feeding
charitks for the different communities conducted by the respective community people. The charity in. question has no connec1
tion with the Gunaseelam temple in the sense that the food "prepared is not offered to the deity, and feeding is done not in the
temple premises but at a separate place originally in a specially
erected panda! and now in Seshagiri lyer's choultry (Dharamshalla). The other communities are not fed at this charity
.
.
The temple authorities have no voice in the conduct
G
of the feeding", and the High Court agreed with that view. The
Subordinate Judge held on those findings that the Samardhanai
Fund was a public charity within the meaning of s. 6(13) and with
that view also the High Court agreed.
The Subordinate Judge
also held that the charitv was associated with the Hindu festival
of Rathotsavam in Sri Prasanna Venkatachallapathiswami temple
H
in Gunasee1am-Rathotsavam being an observance of a religious
character when the deity is taken out in procession in a chariotand therefore the cha~ity in question was clearly one associated
with a Hindu festival and also with the observance of a religious
character. In disagreeing with that view, the High Court observed
that the expression "associated with a Hindu festival or obs er·
vance of a religious character" imported some unity of purpose or
COMMISS!O"ER V. :<ARAYA:<A (Shah, J.)
1 71
A common object or common endeavour between the festiv~l and
the charity and in the absence of such umty, common obiect o.r
common endeavour, the charity could not be regarded as a r.ehgious charity within the meaning of s., 603) of the A~t. In the view
of the High Court that feeding Brahmm p~lgnms. durmg the Rathotsavam festival of Sri Venkatachallapath1swami shrme at GunaB seelam did not constitute an association between the Fund and
the Rathotsavam festival itself, for the trustees of the shrine co~
ducting the festival "had no manner of check, control or supervision over the feeding charity or Samardhana! Fund", th~y could
not insist upon the feeding being done dunng the festival, and
"cessation or discontinuance of the feeding by the trustees. of the
c feeding charity may constitute a breach of trust on their part but
cannot in the least affect the due performance of the Rathotsavam
festival itself". They further observed that belief of the founders
of the charity that feeding Brahmins on the occasion of an important festival was meritorious. will not establish "any link or conD
E
F
6
R
nection" between the festival and the charity.
We are unable to agree with the view so expressed by the
High Court. The expression "associated" in s. 603) of Act 19 of
1951 is used having regard to the history of the legislation, the
scheme and objects of the Act, and the context in which the expression occurs, as meaning "being connected with" or "in relation to".
The expression does not import any control by the authorities who
manage or administer the festival.
A Hindu religious festival or
observance may have a local significance, in that it is celebrated
or observed in a particular locality in connection with a shrine,
temple or math, or it may be a festival or observance celebrated
generally without any connection with any temple or math. In the
case of such general festivals or observances there is no one who
c,rn be so said to cantrol the celebrations, and the definition of
"religious charity" includes such general festivals and observances.
It cannot be assumed that there must always be a set of persons
who control the celebration of a festival or an observance. The
test suggested by the High Court that in order that there should
be, between the charity and the festival or observance such a
relation that the administration of the charity must be controlled
by those :vI10 ce~ebr~te th~ festival or observance in a temple or
math, besides bemg mapt m the case of general festivals and observances can only be evolved if words which are not found in the
definition of "religious charity" are added thereto.
Mr. Vishwanatha Sastri appearing on behalf of the respondenttrut~es contended that the expression "associated with a Hindu
festival or observance of a religious character" in the definition
?f "religious charity" _implies .~at the public charity must be an
mtegral part of the Hmdu rehg1ous festival or observance. But
there is nothing in the Act which indicates any such intention on
!he par~ of , the Legislature., Mr. Sastri sought to give diverse
tllustra.ttons m support. of his contention that mere feeding of
Brahmms on the occasion of a Hindu festival or cbservance will
l72
SUPREME
COURT
REPORT8
[1965] ;I s.c.R.
not amount to association within the meaning of s. 6( 13). It is unA
. necessary to deal with these illustrations, for the definition contemplates a public charity which alone can be a religious
charity if the other conditions are fulfilled.
A voluntary celebration of an event of religious significance by feeding Brahmins does
not make it a public charity. There must be an institution which
may in law be regarded as a public charity, before it may by its B
association with a religious festival or observance be regarded as a
religious charity. The association undoubtedly must be real and
not imaginary, but to constitute association it is not predicated
that the administration of public charity must be controlled by the
persons responsible for celebrating the religious festival in a temple
or math or be an integral part of the f~stival or observance.
c
On the facts found, it is clear that on the occasion of the
Rathotsavam festival of Sri Prasanna Venkatachalapathiswami
shrine, pilgrims from many places attend the festival and the object
of the charity is to feed Brahmins attending the shrine on the occasion of this festival. It is not disputed that setting up a Fund for D
feeding Brahmins is a public charity. The primary purpose of
the charity is to feed Brahmin pilgrims attending the Rat/zotsavam.
This public charity has therefore a real connection with the
Rathotsavam which is a Hindu festival of a religious character, and
therefore it is a religious char'ty within the meaning of s. 6(13) of
Madras Act 19 of 1951. Surplus income of the Fund is used in
Vanabhojanam in the month of Kartigai, and on the day following E
the Vaikunta Ekadeslzi. It is not suggested that on that account
the Fund is not a "religious charity".
We therefore set aside the order passed by the High Court
and restore the order passed by the Trial Court. There will be no
order as to costs throughout.
F
Appeal allowed.