MYSORE RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ACT 1927:-
No alienation or transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise of any inam land granted by the
government to any muzrai institution for its upkeep or for the maintenance of any person renderingservice in connection therewith and no act purporting to create any interest adverse to such institutionin respect of such land, shall be valid unless it is authorized by the general or special orders of the
government. No lease of a property belonging to a muzrai institution for a term exceeding five years shall be valid
unless previously approved by the government or by such officer as may be empowered by thegovernment in this behalf.
Where any Inam Land is granted by the Government for the upkleep of any Matha or other similar institution the Mathadipathi or the head of such other institution shall not alienate such land and allsuch alienations unless made with previous sanction of he Government, shall be null and void.In case of alienation in contravention of the foregoing provisions, then Muzrai officer may, after enquiry, issue notice to the alienee or party in possession to restore the lands to the Matha or other similar institution to which they belonging within six months from the date of service of the said noticeand in default of compliance the lands may be summarily resumed by him and restored to the Matha or other similar Institution.
CASE LAWS GOVERNING RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ANDMATHA’S:-
MAHANTH IS PRESIDING ELEMENT OF MATH:- A Math is a religious institution suigeneric and unlike a temple where the presiding element is the diety, the presiding element of amath is its mahant or matadhipathi.The property belonging to the math is in fact attached to theoffice of mahant, and passed by inheritance to one who does fill the office. The head of the mathis not a trustee in the sense in which the term is generally understood, but in legal contemplationhe has an estate for life in its permanent endownments and an absolute property in the incomederived from the offerings of his followers, subject only to the burden of maintaining the
institution. He is bound to spend a large part of the income derived from the offerings of hisfollowers on religious or charitable objects in accordance with usage. Krishna Singh v MathuraAhir AIR 1980 SC 707. IDOL’S PROPERTIES:- The properties of an Hindu temple or an idol
or debutter estate vests in idol itself, while it’s possession and management vests in the shabait asmanager of the debutter estate. Deoki Nandan v Muralidhar AIR 1955 SC 133.IDOL IS JURISTIC PERSON:- When the property is given absolutely by a pious Hindu for theworship of an idol, the property vests in the idol itself as a juristic person. Kalamaka Devi v
M.R.T.Nagji AIR 1970 SC 439, 441.