# KAMA RAJU VENKA TA KRISHNA RAO v. THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND A~R

- **Citation:** [1969] 1 S.C.R. 624
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-08-08
- **Case number:** CIVIL Ar PELI.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 103 of 1965
- **Bench:** S. 1\1. S1Kri, R. S. i3ACHAWAT ANO K. S. HEGOE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kama-raju-venka-ta-krishna-rao-v-the-sub-collector-ongole-and-a-r-4458
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Andhra Jna111s (Abolition & Conversion into R_voovari) Acl 36 of
1956, s. 2(1::.~)-1/ a tank fell lvithin the definition of a cluiritnble institution.
'fhe appellant clain1cd that certain property comprised in an Inam
which wa.' abolished by 'inue of the Andhra ln;ims (Aboli!ion & Conver.;ion into Ryo1wari) Act 36 of 1956 should be registered 111 his name.
His contention \\';1~ that prior to its abolition he was t~ In:imdar of that
lnam though he had the liability to repair a tank in his village from out of
the income. o[ lnam v.·as granted for a charitable purpose, the object of
assuming the Inan1 \\'as }!ranted for a ch.afitahle purpose, the object of
the charity being a tank! the same could not be consiElcTcd a charitable
institution.
HELD: (i) It \\'as clear from the L'\'itiL·nce that the Jna1n \\·as grant~d
in favour o·f the tank and \Vas not
a grant in favour of the appcllanrs
family subject to the liability to repair the tank; and furthennore that the
ancestors of the appellant and subscquen1ly the appellant ,,-ere looking
after the management of the tank.
(ii) Under Hindu )a\V a tank ca.n he an object of charity :ind v,;hen
a dedication is made in favour of a tank. it is considered as a charitable
institution.
Once it \1.-·as held that the Inam in the present c~ was in
favour of 1he tank. the tank in ques:ion must be considered a charitable
in.•titution within the meaning of s. 2(E) of the Act.
Consequently,
after the aboli1jon of the lnam. the loam propeny
is
converted into
Ryotwari properly of the tank. to be managed by it• manager. Admittedly
the appellant was the present manager and hence the property in question
must be registered in the name of the tank but would continue to be
managed by the appell:lnt o:;o Jong
a~ he
continued
to he its manager.
!628 H-629 CJ
MinistPr of l\'ational Revt•nue v. Trusr.v and
G11r.r11nter Cn.
Ltd.,
119401 A.C. 138; ;\f asjid Shahid Ga11j and Ors. v. Shirt>t11a11i (iurdwara
Parbandhak Con1111ittee,. Anzritsar a11d Anr., A.l.R. 1940 P.C. 116; Jan1nabai v. Khimii Va//11hdass & Or.<.. l.l..R. (1890) 14. Born .. I at p. 9;
and v. i\fariyappa a11d Ors. \'. B. K. 1'11ttaran1ayya a11d Ors. 1.L.R. [ 1957]
'\1ys. 291: referred to.
CIVIL Ar PELI.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 103 of
1965.
Appeal from the order dated August 9; 1963 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition "lo. 431 of 1961.
A
Jl
c
D
E
F
G
D. Narsaraju, A. Subba Rao and K. Jayaram, for the appel11
!ant.
II. Parthasarathy. for respondent No. I.
-
•
•
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
KAMARAJU v. SUB COLLECTOR (Hegde, !.)
625
T. Satyanarayana, for respondent No. 2.

## Text

KAMA RAJU VENKA TA KRISHNA RAO
v.
THE SUB-COLLECTOR, ONGOLE AND A~R.
August 8, 1968
[S. 1\1. S1KRI, R. S. i3ACHAWAT ANO K. S. HEGOE, JJ.]
Andhra Jna111s (Abolition & Conversion into R_voovari) Acl 36 of
1956, s. 2(1::.~)-1/ a tank fell lvithin the definition of a cluiritnble institution.
'fhe appellant clain1cd that certain property comprised in an Inam
which wa.' abolished by 'inue of the Andhra ln;ims (Aboli!ion & Conver.;ion into Ryo1wari) Act 36 of 1956 should be registered 111 his name.
His contention \\';1~ that prior to its abolition he was t~ In:imdar of that
lnam though he had the liability to repair a tank in his village from out of
the income. o[ lnam v.·as granted for a charitable purpose, the object of
assuming the Inan1 \\'as }!ranted for a ch.afitahle purpose, the object of
the charity being a tank! the same could not be consiElcTcd a charitable
institution.
HELD: (i) It \\'as clear from the L'\'itiL·nce that the Jna1n \\·as grant~d
in favour o·f the tank and \Vas not
a grant in favour of the appcllanrs
family subject to the liability to repair the tank; and furthennore that the
ancestors of the appellant and subscquen1ly the appellant ,,-ere looking
after the management of the tank.
(ii) Under Hindu )a\V a tank ca.n he an object of charity :ind v,;hen
a dedication is made in favour of a tank. it is considered as a charitable
institution.
Once it \1.-·as held that the Inam in the present c~ was in
favour of 1he tank. the tank in ques:ion must be considered a charitable
in.•titution within the meaning of s. 2(E) of the Act.
Consequently,
after the aboli1jon of the lnam. the loam propeny
is
converted into
Ryotwari properly of the tank. to be managed by it• manager. Admittedly
the appellant was the present manager and hence the property in question
must be registered in the name of the tank but would continue to be
managed by the appell:lnt o:;o Jong
a~ he
continued
to he its manager.
!628 H-629 CJ
MinistPr of l\'ational Revt•nue v. Trusr.v and
G11r.r11nter Cn.
Ltd.,
119401 A.C. 138; ;\f asjid Shahid Ga11j and Ors. v. Shirt>t11a11i (iurdwara
Parbandhak Con1111ittee,. Anzritsar a11d Anr., A.l.R. 1940 P.C. 116; Jan1nabai v. Khimii Va//11hdass & Or.<.. l.l..R. (1890) 14. Born .. I at p. 9;
and v. i\fariyappa a11d Ors. \'. B. K. 1'11ttaran1ayya a11d Ors. 1.L.R. [ 1957]
'\1ys. 291: referred to.
CIVIL Ar PELI.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 103 of
1965.
Appeal from the order dated August 9; 1963 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition "lo. 431 of 1961.
A
Jl
c
D
E
F
G
D. Narsaraju, A. Subba Rao and K. Jayaram, for the appel11
!ant.
II. Parthasarathy. for respondent No. I.
-
•
•
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
H
KAMARAJU v. SUB COLLECTOR (Hegde, !.)
625
T. Satyanarayana, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J. A short, none the less in~eresting question of I.aw
arises for decision in this aweal by certificate, and that question
is whether a tank can be considered as a charitable institution
within the meaning of those words ins. 2(E) of the Andhra Inams
(Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari Act) 1956 (Act No. 36
of 1956) (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The Inam with which we are concerned in this case stands
abolished under the Act. The appellant wants the property comprised in that Inam to be registered in his name. His contention
is that prior to its abolition he was the Inamdar of that Jnam
though he had the liability to repair the tank in his village from
out of the income of that Inam. The Authorities under the Act
have rejected his claim that he was the Inamdar of the Inam in
question. . They have come to the conclusion that the Inam was
in favour of the tank and that he was in possession of the Jnam
property only as the Manager of the tank which according to them
was a charitable institution.
This conclusion has been upheld by
the High Court.
It j,s not known as to who granted the Inam in question. The
grant is lost in antiquity. The only evidence we have relating to
this Inam are the entries in the Inam register.
A copy of that
register has been produced in this case.
Therein the Inam is
shown to have been granted to the tank "uracheruvu".
Under
column 8 it is mentioned that it was given for repairs of the pond
called uracheruvu situated close to the village. Under column 10
it is mentioned that it is to be in force so long as the repairs of the
tank are performed. The ancestor of the appellant was shown to
be the Manager of the charitable institution viz., the tank. Under
the remarks colunm it is mentioned "The pond is of great use for
the cattle and people of the village. The Inam can be coniirmed
permanently so long as the. repairs are performed. The pond for
which the Inam was originally granted was srtuated north to the
village and is now out of use. At the request of the villagers the
late Co!lector Mr. Fraser issued an order in 1819 that the proceeds of this Inam can be applied to the present existing Kunta
which is south to the village and so of use."
•
From these entries it is clear that the Inam was granted in
favour of the tank known as "uracheruvu". It has been so considered i:tt least ever since 1819. Therefore we are unable to
uphold the contention of the appellant that it was a grant in
favour of his family subject to the liability to repair the tank.
It
appears that the ancestors of the appellant and at present the
appellant is looking after the management of the tank.
626
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1969] I S.C.R
Mr. Narsaraju, learned Counsel for the appellant contended
that even if we come to the conclusion that the lnam was granted
for a charitable purpose, the ,object of the charity being a tank.
the same cannot be considered as a charitable institution.
Accordin2 to him a tank cannot be considered as an institution.
In
support of that contention of his he relied on the dictionary meaning of the term 'institution'.
According to the dictionary meaning
the tenn 'institution' means .. a body or organization of an association brought into being for the purpose of achieving some object".
Oxford Dictionary defines an 'in<aitution' as
"an
establishment
organisation or association. imtituted for the promotion of some
object es(>ccially one of public or general utility. religions, charitable, educational, etc." Other Dictionaries define the same word
as 'organised society established either by law or the authority of
individuals, for promoting
any object,
public or social'.
In
Minister of National Revenue v. Trusrs and Guarmllee Co. Ltd.(')
the Privy Council observed :
"It is by no means easy to give a definition of the
word "institution" that will cover every use of it.
Its
meaning must always depend upon the context in which
it is found."
In Masjid Shahid Ganj and Ors. v. Shiromani G11rdwara Prabandhak Commitlec, Amritsar and A nr. (').the Privy Council considered a Madrasah as institution though il doubted whether the
same can be considered as a "juristic personality''.
This is what
the Privy Council observed :
"A gift can be made to a madrasah in like manner
as to a masjid.
The right of suit by the mutwali or
other manager or by any person entitled to a benefit
(whether individually or as a member of the
public
or merely in common with certain other persons) seems
hitherto to have been found sufficient for the purpose
of maintaining Mohomedan endowment<.
At best the
instittuion is but a caput mortuum, and some hwnan
agency
is
always
required
to
take
delivery
of
property and to apply it to the intended purposes. Their
Lordships. with all respect to the High Court of Lahore,
must not be taken as deciding that a "juristic personality" may be extended for any purpose to Muslim institutions generally or to mosques in particular.
On this
general question they reserve their opinion."
We may at this stage state that the Act has not defined either the
expression "charitable institution" or even "institution". Therefore
we have to find out the mcanini! of that tcnn with reference to
the context in which it is found.' We must remember that the
(I)
[1940j /\.C. 1.1".
(2\
A.1.R.
1l:l40 P.C., 116.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
KAMARAJU v. SUB COLLECTOR (Hegde, I.)
627
expression "charitable institution" is used in a statute which abolishes Ina.ms. The Inam in question must undoubtedly have been
granted by a Hindu. Most of the Ina.ms abolished by the Act were
those granted by Hindu Kings in the past. According to Hindu
conceptions a tank has always been considered as an object of
charity.
In the Tagore Law Lectures delivered in 1892 by late
Pandit Prannath Saraswati on "The Hindu Law of Endowments",
be stated:
"From very ancient times the sacred writings of the
Hindus divided works productive of religious
merit
into two divisions named ishta and purta a classification
which has come down to our times.
So much so that
the entire objects of Hindu endowments will be found
included within the enumeration of ishta
and
purta
works.
In the Rig Veda ishtapurttam (sacrifices and
charities) are described as the means of going to heaven ..
In commenting on, the same passage Sayana explains
ishtapurtta to denote "the gifts bestowed in srauta and
smarka rites."
In the Taittiriya Aranyaka, ishtapurtta
occur in much the same sense and Sayana in commenting on the same explains ishta to denote "Vedic rltes
like Darsa, Pumamasa etc. and purta "to denote Smarkta
works like tanks, wells etc.".
At page 26 he again quotes Vyasa in these words :
"Tanks, wells with flights of steps, temples, the bestowing of food, and groves-these are called purttam."
At page 27, the learned lecturer enumerates the purtta
worksAmongst them is included the construction of works for the storage of water, as wells, baolis, tanks etc.
The learned lecturer
devotes his tenth lecture to "purtta". In the course of that lecture
ho again states that the construction of ·reservoirs of water is
cl~ by Hindu sages amongst 'the "purtta" and charitable works.
In this connection he quotes from various treatises such as :
(i) Ashwalayana Grihya Parishishta;
(ii) Vishnu Dharmottara;
(iii) Skanda Purana;
(iv) Nandi Purana;
(v) Aditya Purana;
(vi) Yama;
(vii) Mahabharata etc. etc.
In Jamnabai v. Khimji Vullubdass and Ors.( 1 ) Sir Charles Sargent Kt., C.J. while interpreting a will observed thus :
(!) I.LR. [1890] 14; Born., 1 at p. 9.
l3 Sup.Cl/68-9
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] I sC.R.
"We come to the latter part of clause 6, which directs
the building of a well and "avada", (cistern for animals
to drink water from), out of the surplus of his fund
after providing for the outley of the two
sadavarats
and repairing his property. Mr. Justice Jardine considered he could not presume a charitable object in a well
and "avada". Such an object is so frequently the result
of charitable jntention in Oriental countries, and is so
entirely in accordance with the notions of the people
of this country that we think that, in the absence of
anything to show that the testator intended the well and
"avada" to be built for the benefit of the propcrtyand there is nothing in the present will to show such
intention-they should be presumed to have intended
by the testator for the use of the public."
In V. Mariyappa and Ors. v. B. K. Puttaramayya and Ors(') a
Division Bench of the Mysore High Court observed thus :
"The maintenanee of Sadavartas, tanks,
scats
of
learning and homes for the disabled or the destitute and
similar institutions is recognised by and well known to
Hindu law, and when maintained as public institutions
they must be taken to have a legal personality as a
Matha or the diety in a temple has, and the persons in
charge of the Management would occupy a position of
trust."
That decision proceeds on the basis that a tank can be a charitable institution under Hindu law. That decision was quoted with
appro_yal by late Bijan Kumar Mukherjea who later became the
Chief Justice of this Court, in his Tagore Law Lectures delivered
in August 1951.
Therein he observed :
"It has been held that though Mutts and temples
are the most common forms of Hindu religious institutions, dedication for religious or charitable purposes
need not necessarily take one of these forms and that
the maintenance of sadabartas, tanks, seats of learning
and homes for the disabled or the destitute and similar
institutions are recognised by and well known to Hindu
law and when maintained as public institutions,
they
must be taken to have a legal personality as a Matha or
the deity in a temple has, and the persons in charge of
the management would occupy a position of trust."
From the above discussion it is seen that under Hindu law a
tank can be an object of charity and when a dedication is made in·
(I) I.LR. (l957J Mys. 291.
A
-
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
•
B
c
KAMARAJU V. SUB COLLECTOR (Hegde. J.)
629
favour of a tank, the same is considered as a charitable institution.
It is not necessary for our present purpose to decide whether
that institution can also be considered as a juristic person. Once
we come to the conclusion that the Inam with which we are concerned in this case was an Inam in favour of the "uracheruvu"
(tank) that tank must be considered as a charitable institution
under the Act. Consequently after the abolition of the Inam,
the Inam property gets itself converted into Royatwari property,
of the "uracheruvu", to be managed by its Manager. Admittedly
the appellant is its present Manager.
Hence the property in
question has to be registered in the name of the tank but it will
continue to be managed by the appelJant so long as he continues
to be its Manager.
In the result subject to our observations as regards the management of the property, the appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.