MATHA PROPERTIES

MYSORE RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS ACT 1927:SECTION 9 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 rendering service in connection therewith and no act purporting to create any interest adverse to such institution in 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 the government in this behalf. SECTION 30 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 all such 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 notice and 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 AND MATHA’S:MAHANTH IS PRESIDING ELEMENT OF MATH:- A Math is a religious institution sui generic and unlike a temple where the presiding element is the diety, the presiding element of a math is its mahant or matadhipathi.The property belonging to the math is in fact attached to the office of mahant, and passed by inheritance to one who does fill the office. The head of the math is not a trustee in the sense in which the term is generally understood, but in legal contemplation he has an estate for life in its permanent endownments and an absolute property in the income derived 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 his followers on religious or charitable objects in accordance with usage. Krishna Singh v Mathura Ahir 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 as manager 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 the worship 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.

NO DOCUMENT REQUIRED:- Except where a religious or charitable trust is created by a will, it is quite competent to a Hindu to dedicate for religious or charitable purpose, any immoveable property without any document in writing. Govindlaji v State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1638. DEED FOR DIETY IT’S INTERPRETATION:- Supreme court has laid down cardinal principles of construction of a deed of dedication of property to the diety. Nirmalabala Ghosh v Balaichand Ghosh AIR 1965 SC 1874. FOUNDER RIGHT’S:- A founder has got a right to appoint a shebait and lay down the rule of succession. A founder who does not create a line of succession does not dispose of the shebaiti right. In such cases the shebaitiship devolves on the heirs of the founder. Proffulla Chrone v Satya Chrone AIR 1979 SC 1682. WILL CANNOT BE MADE FOR SHEBAITSHIP:- SHEBAIT is a Human Ministrant and custodian of the idol and of a manager of endowed properties. Will operates on the death of testator. On the death of shebaith there is nothing to be transmitted through will. Kali Kinkor Ganguly v Panna Banerjee AIR 1974 SC 1932. SALE OF TEMPLE VOID:- The transfer of either temple or the diety by sale is void in its inception. Kali Kinkor Ganguly v Panna Banerjee AIR 1974 SC 1932. SALE OF DEBUTTER PROPERTY:- An alienation of a debutter property by a sale or by permanent lease is governed by the Rule of “unavoidable necessity” or “legal necessity” or “benefit of the diety or estate” Sridhar v Shri Jagan Nath Temple AIR 1976 SC 1860/ G.V.Kamath v Vishnu Dev AIR 1973 Mys 207. BENEFIT OF ESTATE:- For a transaction to be treated as benefit of estate the real test would be whether it was one which a prudent owner would enter into in the ordinary course of a management with prudence and foresight. Balmukund v Kamalwati AIR 1964 SC 1385. MATHADIKARI:- The office of Mathadikaricarries with it the rights to manage and possess the endowed properties on behalf of the math and the right to sue on its behalf for the protection of those properties. Saranagadeva v Ramaswami AIR 1966 SC 1603, 1606.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful