9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Nature of the grant - Specific endowment or personal grant 2. Suit maintainability 3. Amendment of the prayer clause Nature of the Grant - Specific Endowment or Personal Grant: The case involved a dispute over whether a grant was a specific endowment for Kalyanotsavam of a deity or a personal grant burdened with service to the god. The trial court initially held it to be a specific endowment, but the appellants challenged this finding. The Supreme Court analyzed the documentary evidence, including inam papers from 1859-60, and concluded that the grant was indeed a specific endowment for Kalyanotsavam. The court emphasized the importance of inam registers as evidence and highlighted specific entries indicating the purpose of the grant for the deity's services. The court also considered admissions by the predecessors of the appellants supporting the specific trust nature of the grant. The High Court's finding that the grant was a specific endowment was upheld, rejecting the appellant's argument that the grant was a personal one with an obligation to spend on the deity's service. Suit Maintainability and Amendment of Prayer Clause: The appellants raised three points in the appeal: suit maintainability, allowance of the amendment, and the nature of the grant. The Supreme Court found that the suit's maintainability was not adequately challenged, and the High Court's decision to allow the amendment of the prayer clause was justified. The court noted that all necessary allegations had been made in the plaint, and the parties were aware of the issues in controversy. The amendment merely added a formal relief that flowed from the existing allegations. Therefore, the High Court's decision to permit the amendment was upheld. Cy-Pres Doctrine and Division of Income: Another issue addressed was the division of income from the inam lands for the deity's service. The trial court suggested allocating only a portion of the income, while the High Court applied the Cy-pres doctrine, directing the entire income to the deity. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's decision, citing precedents and the original intent behind the grant, which aimed to devote the entire income to charity. The court upheld the application of the Cy-pres doctrine based on the nature of the grant and historical expenditure patterns, dismissing the appeal and affirming the High Court's judgment. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that the grant was a specific endowment for the deity's services. The court also supported the application of the Cy-pres doctrine to allocate the entire income to the deity and affirmed the decision to allow the amendment of the prayer clause.
|
