Dedication Of Property As Religious Endowment Can Be Inferred From Circumstances ; Express Dedication Or Document Not Required: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the dedication of a property as religious endowment does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances.

Extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna observed thus while holding that Adipooram Thiruvabaranam comprising of the 26 items of jewellery, some of which are embedded with diamonds and precious stones, belongs to the deity Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman of the Sri Kayarohanasamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple. 

This case arose out of a suit filed by R.M. Sundaram, who claimed that the jewellery was inherited by him as his personal property being the adopted son of Muthuthandapani Chettiar. He had also sought a mandatory injunction to the Temple to permit him to "maintain independent and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Kudavarai" of the Temple. The temple resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff lacked title over the suit jewellery, and the custody over the keys of the Kudavarai by Muthuthandapani Chettiar was merely an honorary responsibility. The temple further stated that the jewellery was donated by the ancestors of Muthuthandapani Chettiar absolutely to the idol/deity and constitutes a specific endowment attached to the Temple. This suit was dismissed by the Trial Court mainly on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The first appellate court and later the High Court confirmed this judgment. The High Court also affirmed the decree of declaration passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Temple in a suit filed by it.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noted that as far as endowment of the suit jewellery is concerned, there are concurrent findings of fact by the three courts. Referring to the judgments in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar AIR 1957 SC 133, The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Sri Ratnavarma Heggade (Deceased) by his L. Rs (1977) 1 SCC 525, M.R. Goda Rao Sahib v. State of Madras (1966) 1 SCR 643, Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its Executive Officer, Joint Commissioner v. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, represented by its Managing Trustee and Others (2020) 17 SCC 96 and M.J. Thulasiraman and Another v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Administration and Another (2019) 8 SCC 689, the court observed thus:

"In the context of the present case and the facts recorded above, it is clear that the suit jewellery was a 'specific endowment' for the performance of the specific service of adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman, to be taken out in the Temple car and ratham in a grand procession during the Adipooram festival. Further, as explained below, it was a charity in favour of the Temple and was for performance of a religious charity. The involvement of the family of the appellant was limited and restricted to retaining the keys of the Kudavarai and the iron safe which were to be opened at the time of the festival of Adipooram and the suit jewellery was to be taken out for the specific purpose of adorning the deity, Sri Neelayadhakshi Amman....

Therefore, in view of the judgments quoted above and the aforesaid statutory provisions, it must be held that the case of the appellant that there was no endowment or specific endowment must fail and has no legs to stand on. The dedication of the suit jewellery does not require an express dedication or document, and can be inferred from the circumstances, especially the uninterrupted and long possession of the suit jewellery by the respondent/Temple. The private character of the jewels had extinguished long back and the appellant has no basis to claim that the suit jewellery was inherited by him from his adoptive parents. The endowment is clearly public in nature and for the purposes of performing religious ceremonies. As confirmed by three courts, with which we are in agreement, the suit jewellery was dedicated for a specific purpose and can only be used during the performance of the religious ceremony during the Adipooram festival."

The bench also rejected the contentions raised by the appellant on the issue of 'Res Judicata' against the suit filed by the Temple seeking declaration. Dismissing the appeal, the court also passed a decree restraining the appellant from interfering in any manner with the right of the Temple authorities to take out the suit jewellery from the Kudavarai whenever the occasion demands. In other words, the appellant would cooperate with the request(s) made by the Executive Officer and Trustees of the respondent/Temple to open the Kudavarai doors and take out the suit jewellery from the iron-safe whenever required, the Court ordered.

Case details

R.M. Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram vs Sri Kayarohanasamy And Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 612 | CA 3964-3965 OF 2009 | 11 July 2022 | Justices Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment