1953 (10) TMI 47 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale deed (Exhibit D-6).
2. Validity of the settlement deed (Exhibit D-8).
3. Determination of whether certain properties were part of Kanakasabapathi's estate.
4. Validity of the dedication of properties for religious and charitable purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale Deed (Exhibit D-6):
The courts below found that the sale deed executed by Gomathi Ammal, conveying the entire bus service to the 2nd defendant for Rs. 80,000, was executed for grossly inadequate consideration and brought about by undue influence and fraud of the 2nd defendant. Consequently, the sale deed was set aside.

2. Validity of the Settlement Deed (Exhibit D-8):
The main dispute was regarding the settlement deed executed by Gomathi Ammal, which dedicated certain properties for religious and charitable purposes. The courts below found that the assertions in the settlement deed-that the properties in Schedule 2 were Gomathi Ammal's own property and not part of Kanakasabapathi's estate-were not true. The courts relied on precedents like Kunhamutty v. Thondikkodan Ahmad Musaliar to declare the dedication invalid.

3. Determination of Whether Certain Properties Were Part of Kanakasabapathi's Estate:
The Subordinate Judge found that item 25 of Schedule II, item 6 of Schedule III-C, and item 5 of Schedule IV did not form part of Kanakasabapathi's estate, while all other items did. This finding was confirmed by the High Court, and there was no further appeal on these matters.

4. Validity of the Dedication of Properties for Religious and Charitable Purposes:
The settlement deed was scrutinized to determine if the dedication of properties for the samadhi (tomb) and related services was valid. The deed detailed that the properties were dedicated for the upkeep of the tomb, daily pooja, annual Gurupooja, annadhanam, and educational purposes. However, the dominant purpose was found to be the samadhi kainkariyam (services related to the tomb).

The courts concluded that the dedication for the worship at the samadhi did not constitute a valid religious or charitable purpose under Hindu law. The Madras High Court had previously ruled that such dedications do not qualify as charitable or religious purposes recognized by Hindu law. The court emphasized that religious merit, as recognized by Hindu law, must have a Shastraic basis or be widely accepted by a substantial and large class of persons. The practice of dedicating properties for tomb worship did not meet these criteria.

The court also noted that the belief in the spiritual benefit of such dedications must be widely recognized and not just held by a few individuals. The plaintiff asserted that the institution of samadhi and related ceremonies were not usual in their community, further supporting the invalidity of the dedication.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court, declaring the settlement deed invalid and dismissing the appeal without costs. The dedication of properties for the samadhi kainkariyam was not recognized as a valid religious or charitable purpose under Hindu law.