{"id":55707,"date":"1969-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969"},"modified":"2019-03-07T19:19:15","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T13:49:15","slug":"commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1114, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 917<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLEENDOWMENTS.\t MYS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU.   KRISHNA RAO & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/10\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR 1114\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 917\n 1969 SCC  (3) 451\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,  1951,\nas  amended by Act 27 of 1954-Sections 76(1) and  100-Nature\nof contribution leviable-Rules prescribing the levy need not\nbe framed for individual temples.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  1955  the Government of Madras framed  Rules  under\t the\nMadras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,  1951,\nas amended by Act 27 of 1954, prescribing a graduated  scale\nof  rates  of contribution under s. 76(1) of the  Act.\t The\nrules  remained\t in  force  in the  State  of  Mysore  after\nreorganisation\tof  the State of Madras and applied  to\t the\ntemples in the South Kanara district which was\tincorporated\nin  the\t Mysore State.\tOn a petition by  the  respondents,-\ntrustees of a temple in the South Kanara district, the\tHigh\nCourt  of  Mysore in Devraja Shenoy v. The State  of  Mysore\n[1960 Mys.  L.J. 245] declared invalid certain provisions of\nthe amended Act imposing control upon the administration  of\ntemples\t governed  by  the Act.\t  Thereafter  the  Assistant\nCommissioner   of   Religious\tEndowments   directed\t the\nrespondents  to\t pay the arrears of contribution  and  audit\nfee.  The respondents again moved the High Court challenging\nthe  validity  of the demand.  The High Court  upheld  their\nplea  on the ground that no rules had been framed  under  s.\n100  of the Act, and, therefore, the demand for recovery  of\ncontribution was premature.  The decision of the High  Court\nwas  largely  influenced by some observations  made  in\t the\njudgment in Devraja Shenoy's case.  The court observed\tthat\nsince  what was stated in that case on behalf of  the  State\nwag   that  the\t amount\t of  contribution  payable  by\t the\npetitioner  (respondent)  temple had to be prescribed  by  a\nrule  which  'remained\tto be made it meant  that  what\t was\ndecided was that no contribution could be recovered from the\ntemple until such a rule was made.  Regarding the demand for\narrears\t of audit fee the court held that  the\tCommissioner\nhad not \"determined\" the cost of auditing the account of the\nrespondent temple under s. 76 (2) of the Act and the  demand\nwas  \"on  that account without competence  or  authority  of\nlaw.\" In appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : (i) It is true that the High Court declared  invalid\ncertain\t provisions  of the Act imposing  control  over\t the\nadministration of temples governed by the Act.\tBut on\tthat\naccount the power to make rules was not restricted nor\twere\nthe  rules framed by the government rendered  invalid.\t The\nassumption made by the High Court that the Government had to\nmake under s. 100 rules applicable to each temple separately\nand prescribing the levy for determining contribution, finds\nno  support  in\t the provisions of the Act  or\tits  scheme.\nUnder the Act a fee though levied for rendering services  of\na  particular  type need not be co-related to  the  services\nperformed for each individual who is intended to obtain\t the\nbenefit\t of the services.  The co-relation must\t be  between\nthe  expenses incurred by the authority levying the fee\t for\ngenerally  providing  the service and the aggregate  of\t the\nlevy from persons who are to be made subject thereto.  It is\na  necessary  corollary that general rules  prescribing\t the\nlevy  of fee from religious endowments have to be  made\t and\nnot  rules  governing individual endowments.   Such  general\nrules were in fact framed and were in operation when the\n918\ndemand\twas  made.   The concession made  by  the  Advocate-\nGeneral\t at  the hearing in Devraja Shenoy's  case  did\t not\noblige the State to frame separate rules in respect of\teach\nindividual  religious institution.  Even if the\t respondent!\ntemple\tdid not need the services or did not obtain  benefit\nof  the\t services provided the contribution would  still  be\nrecoverable.   Because the rules were framed at a time\twhen\nseveral\t different  kinds of services were  intended  to  be\nrendered and the court later- struck down certain provisions\nof  the\t Act under which services were to be  rendered,\t the\nrules framed in 1955 cannot be held to be inapplicable. [921\nA-B, G; 922 E, G-923 B]\nH.   H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swatniar v. Commissioner for Hindu\nReligious  & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, [1963]  Supp.  2\nS.C.R. 302,  referred\t to.\n(ii) It\t was  not  the\tcase of\t the  respondents  in  their\npetition  in the High Court that the Commissioner had a\t not\n\"determined\"  the audit fee under s. 76(2).  It\t was  merely\nasserted  that\tthe fee demanded was excessive.\t  Since\t the\nHigh   Court  proceeded\t upon  the  ground  of\tabsence\t  of\ndetermination  by the Commissioner which was  never  pleaded\nand the High Court had not determined whether the audit\t fee\ndemanded  was for meeting the cost of auditing the  accounts\nof the respondent temple, the order passed by the High Court\nmust be set aside and the case remanded. [924 C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2312 of 1966.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated November 7, 1962 of
\nthe Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 781 of 1960.
\nM.   C.\t Chagla,  S.  S. Javali and S.\tP.  Nayar,  for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
M.   K. Nambyar, G. L. Sanghi and J. B. Dadachanji for
\nrespondents Nos.  1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah, J. The Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments\t Act
\n19 of 1951 was enacted to provide for the better administra-
\ntion  and  governance  of  Hindu  Religious  and  Charitable
\nInstitutions  and Endowments in the State of  Madras.\tThis
\nCourt in The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and  Charitable
\nEndowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri
\nShirur Mutt<\/a>(1) held that ss. 21, 30(2), 31, 55, 56 and 63 to
\n69  of\tAct  19\t of 1951 were  ultra  vires,  in  that\tthey
\ninfringed  the guarantee of the fundamental rights in  Arts.
\n19(1)(f),  25  and 26 of the Constitution  of  India.\tThis
\nCourt  also-held  that\tS.  76(1)  providing  for   imposing
\nliability  for\tpayment\t of contribution which\twas  of\t the
\nnature\tof a tax and not a fee, was beyond  the\t legislative
\ncompetence of the State Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
The  Legislature then amended the Act by Madras Act  27\t of,
\n1954.\tOn August 11, 1955, the Government of Madras  framed
\nRules  under the Act prescribing a graduated scale of  rates
\nof contribution under s. 76(1).\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 1005.\n<\/p>\n
 919<\/span><\/p>\n
The respondents who are trustees of the Venkataramana Temple
\nat  Mulki,  District South Kanara, moved a petition  in\t the
\nHigh   Court  of  Madras  for  an  order   restraining\t the
\nCommissioner  of Hindu Religious and  Charitable  Endowments
\nfrom  enforcing\t the provisions of the Amending\t Act  27  of
\n1954.\tUnder  the  scheme of  reorganization  of  State  of
\nMadras,\t the petition was transferred for trial to the\tHigh
\ncourt  of Mysore.  The High Court of Mysore by\torder  dated
\nMarch 16, 1959, held that ss. 21, 30(2), 31, 63 to 69 and 89
\nas  amended by Act 27 of 1954 were invalid : Devraja  Shenoy
\nv. The State of Madras(1).\n<\/p>\n
The  Assistant Commissioner of Religious Endowments  Mysore,
\nissued on September 30, 1959 directing the respondent to pay
\nthe  arrears  of  contributions\t and  audit  fee  under\t the
\nCommissioner’s\tdemand\tnotice\tdated June  25,\t 1957.\t The
\nrespondents  moved  another petition in the  High  Court  of
\nMysore\tchallenging  the validity of the demand.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  upheld the plea on the ground that no rules had\tbeen
\nframed\tunder S. 100 of the Act, and therefore,\t the  demand
\nfor  levy of contribution was Premature, and that audit\t fee
\ndemanded by the Commissioner was without determination under
\ns.  76(2)  of  the  Act and was\t “on  that  account  without
\ncompetence  or authority of law”.  With certificate  granted
\nby  the\t High Court, the Commissioner of Hindu\tReligious  &
\nCharitable Endowments has preferred this appeal.
\nThe  provisions of the Act which are relevant may  first  be
\nread:\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.  71  “(1) The trustee\tof  every  religious
\n\t      institution shall keep regular accounts of all
\n\t      receipts and disbursements.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   The\t  accounts   of\t  every\t   religious
\n\t      institution,  the annual. income of  which  as
\n\t      calculated for the purposes of section 76\t for
\n\t      the  fasli year immediately preceding  is\t not
\n\t      less  than  sixty thousand  rupees,  shall  be
\n\t      subject  to concurrent audit, that is to\tsay,
\n\t      the  audit  shall\t take  place  as  and when
\n\t      expenditure is incurred.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (4)   The audit shall be made-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   in\tthe case of a religious\t institution
\n\t      the  annual  income  of  which  calculated  as
\n\t      aforesaid\t for  the  fasli  year\t immediately
\n\t      preceding\t is  not  less\tthan  one   thousand
\n\t      rupees,\tby   auditors\tappointed   in\t the
\n\t      prescribed manner,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)
\n\t      (1)   (1960) Mys.\t L.J. 245.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      920<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      S.    76-“(1)  In\t respect  of  the   services
\n\t      rendered by the Government and their  officers
\n\t      and  for\tdefraying the expenses\tincurred  on
\n\t      account  of  such\t services  every   religious
\n\t      institution  shall from the income derived  by
\n\t      it,  pay\tto the\tCommissioner  annually\tsuch
\n\t      contribution not exceeding five per centum  of
\n\t      its income as may be prescribed.
\n\t      (2)   Every religious institution, the  annual
\n\t      income   of   which,  for\t  the\tfasli\tyear
\n\t      immediately  preceding as calculated  for\t the
\n\t      purposes\tof  the levy of\t contribution  under
\n\t      sub-section (1), is not less than one thousand
\n\t      rupees,\tshall\tpay  to\t  the\tCommissioner
\n\t      annually, for meeting the cost of auditing its
\n\t      accounts,\t such further sum not exceeding\t one
\n\t      and  a  half per centum of its income  as\t the
\n\t      Commissioner may determine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (4)   The\t Government shall pay the  salaries,
\n\t      allowances,  pensions  and  other\t  beneficial
\n\t      remuneration  of\tthe  Commissioners,   Deputy
\n\t      Commissioners,  Assistant\t Commissioners\t and
\n\t      other  officers and servants (other than\texe-
\n\t      cutive  officers\tof  religious  institutions)
\n\t      employed for the purposes of this Act and\t the
\n\t      other  expenses incurred. for  such  purposes,
\n\t      including the expenses of Area Committees\t and
\n\t      the cost of auditing the accounts of religious
\n\t      institutions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      S.    100-“(1)  The Government may make  rules
\n\t      to  carry\t out all or any of the\tpurposes  of
\n\t      this Act and not inconsistent therewith.
\n\t      (2)   In particular, and without prejudice  to
\n\t      the  generality of the foregoing\tpower,\tthey
\n\t      shall have power to make rules with  reference
\n\t      to the following matters\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the method of calculating the income  of
\n\t      a\t religious  institution for the\t purpose  of
\n\t      levying contribution and the rate at which  it
\n\t      shall be levied;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Rules were framed by the State of Madras on August 11,\t1955
\nauthorising the imposition of a graded levy of contribution.
\nThe  Rules framed by the Government of the State  of  Madras
\nremained   in\tforce\tin  the\t State\t of   Mysore   after
\nreorganization\tof the State. of Madras, and applied to\t the
\ntemples in the South Kanara District which was\tincorporated
\nin  the\t Mysore State.\tIt is true that the  High  Court  of
\nMysore declared invalid certain provisions of
\n 921<\/span>
\nthe Act imposing control upon the administration of  temples
\ngoverned by the Act.  But on that account the power to\tmake
\nrules  was not restricted, nor were the rules framed by\t the
\nGovernment rendered invalid.  The decision of the High Court
\nthat  no rules for the levy of contribution were framed\t was
\nlargely influenced by the observations made in the  judgment
\nin  devraja Shenoy’s case(1).  It was observed in that\tcase
\nthat  since the respondents had applied for restraining\t the
\nState  from enforcing any of the provisions of the  Act,  an
\ninvestigation  into the sustainability of that\tclaim  would
\nhave involved determination of the validity of s. 76(1)\t and
\nof  any\t demand for contribution under\tits  provisions\t and
\nsince the Advocate General appearing for the State, in\tthat
\ncase  had informed the Court that the question did not\tfall
\nto be determined because rules prescribing the\tcontribution
\npayable by the respondent-temple “had yet to be made,  which
\nmeant that until such rule was made no contribution could be
\ndemanded”, the conclusion reached by the Court was in  truth
\n“a decision on one of the material questions arising in that
\ncase,  and  binding on all the parties to  that\t case.”\t The
\nCourt proceeded to observe :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In   that   view\t  of  the   matter   it\t  is
\n\t      incontrovertible\tthat what was stated in\t the
\n\t      previous case on behalf; of the State was that
\n\t      the  amount  of contribution  payable  by\t the
\n\t      petitioners  (respondent)\t temple\t should\t  be
\n\t      prescribed by a rule which remained to be made
\n\t      which  means  that what was  decided  by\tthis
\n\t      Court  was that no such contribution could  be
\n\t      recovered\t from that temple until such a\trule
\n\t      was made.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  impugned  demand made on  June  25,\t1957
\n\t      before  this  Court rendered its\tdecision  in
\n\t      Devraja  Shenoy’s\t case(1) on March  10,\t1959
\n\t      having  no efficacy or effect, since it was  a
\n\t      plainly premature demand made even before\t the
\n\t      liability\t to Day the contribution  came\tinto
\n\t      existence,  has  to  be  and  is\t accordingly
\n\t      quashed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This view, in our judgment, proceeds upon an incorrect\tview
\nof  the\t true nature of the contribution leviable  under  s.
\n76(1)  of  the Act.  The assumption made by the\t Court\tthat
\nunder the Act the Government had to make under S. 100  rules
\napplicable  to\teach temple separately and  prescribing\t the
\nmethod for determining contribution finds no support in\t the
\nprovisions of the Act or its scheme.\n<\/p>\n
The true nature of the contribution eligible under S.  76(1)
\nunder  Madras Act 19 of 1951 was explained by this Court  in
\nH.  H. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamiar v. Commissioner  for  Hindu
\nReligious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore (2) It was pointed
\nout that (p. 323)
\n(1)  (1961) Mys.  L.J. 245.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 302.\n<\/p>\n
922<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “A levy in the nature of a fee does not  cease
\n\t      to  be of that character merely because  there
\n\t      is  an element of compulsion  or\tcoerciveness
\n\t      present in it, nor is it a postulate of a\t fee
\n\t      that it must have direct relation to the\tac-
\n\t      tual  services  rendered by the  authority  to
\n\t      individual  who  obtains the  benefit  of\t the
\n\t      service.\tIf with a view to provide a specific
\n\t      service,\tlevy is imposed by law and  expenses
\n\t      for maintaining the service are met out of the
\n\t      amounts  collected  there being  a  reasonable
\n\t      relation\tbetween\t the levy and  the  expenses
\n\t      incurred\tfor rendering the service, the\tlevy
\n\t      would be in the nature of a fee and not in the
\n\t      nature of a tax.\tIt is true that ordinarily a
\n\t      fee is uniform and no account is taken of\t the
\n\t      varying  abilities  of  different\t recipients.
\n\t      But  absence of uniformity is not a  criterion
\n\t      on  which alone it can be said that it  is  of
\n\t      the  nature of a tax.  A fee being a  levy  in
\n\t      consideration   of  rendering  service  of   a
\n\t      Particular   type,  co-relation  between\t the
\n\t      expenditure  by  the Government and  the\tlevy
\n\t      must undoubtedly exist, but a levy will not be
\n\t      regarded\tas  a  tax  merely  because  of\t the
\n\t      absence  of  uniformity in its  incidence,  or
\n\t      because\tof  compulsion\tin  the\t  collection
\n\t      thereof,\tnor  because  some  of\tthe  contri-
\n\t      butories\tdo  not obtain the  same  degree  of
\n\t      service as others may.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Under the Act a fee though levied for rendering services  of
\na  particular type is not to be, co-related to the  services
\nperformed for each individual who is intended to obtain\t the
\nbenefit\t of the services.  The co-relation must\t be  between
\nthe  expenses incurred by the authority levying the fee\t for
\ngenerally  providing  the service and the aggregate  of\t the
\nlevy from persons who are to be made subject thereto.  It is
\na  necessary  corollary\t that under the\t Act  general  rules
\nprescribing  the levy of fee from religious endowments\thave
\nto be made, and not rules governing individual endowments.
\nThe  Act does not contemplate separate rules to be  made  in
\nrespect\t of each religious institution likely to obtain\t the
\nbenefit\t of  services rendered by the State  for  which\t the
\ncontribution  is  to  be  levied.   The\t concession  by\t the
\nAdvocate-General at the hearing in Devraja Shenoy’s  case(1)
\ndoes not oblige the State to frame separate rules in respect
\nof  each individual religious institution.  The rules  under
\nthe  Act  have to be general.  And such rules were  in\tfact
\nframed\tand were in operation.\tWe are unable therefore,  to
\nagree with the High Court that appropriate rules were not in
\nexistence at the time when the demand was made, and on\tthat
\naccount the demand was premature.\n<\/p>\n
If  services are provided, assuming that  the  Venkataramana
\ntemple either does not need the services, or does not obtain
\nthe.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  (196)) Mys.  L. J. 245.\n<\/p>\n
 923<\/span><\/p>\n
benefit\t of  the services, the contribution would  still  be
\nrecoverable.   We  are also unable to  accept  the  argument
\nraised\tthat  because the rules were framed at a  time\twhen
\nseveral\t different  kinds of services were  intended  to  be
\nrendered and the Court later struck down certain  provisions
\nof  the\t Act under which services were to be  rendered,\t the
\nrules framed in 1955 were rendered inapplicable.
\nThe  order passed by the High Court upholding the  claim  of
\nthe  respondent-temple\ton  this  part\tof  the.  case\tmust
\ntherefore, be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court has not investigated the  question  whether
\nthere  is  a  reasonable relation  between  the\t expenditure
\nincurred  by the Government for providing services  and\t the
\namounts\t  intended  to\tbe  collected  from  the   religious
\ninstitutions  for  whose,  benefit the services\t are  to  be
\nrendered.  Since this is a matter to be decided on evidence,
\nwe  do\tnot  propose to enter upon  that  question  in\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
The second question relates to the levy of audit fee.  Under
\nS.  76(2)  of the Act audit fee is not to be  prescribed  by
\nrules  :  the  Commissioner has to  determine  the  fee\t for
\nauditing  the  accounts of each\t religious  endowment.\t The
\npower  of  the\tCommissioner  is  subject  to  a  three-fold
\nrestriction  : (1) that the annual income of  the  religious
\ninstitution for the relevant year preceding the year is\t Rs.
\n1,000\/-\t or more; (2) that the fee does not exceed 11\/5%  of
\nthe  income; and (3) that the fee is levied for meeting\t the
\ncost of auditing the accounts of the religious\tinstitution.
\nIn  the\t present case, conditions (1) & (2)  are  satisfied.
\nBut the High Court was of the view that the Commissioner had
\nnot  determined\t the cost of auditing- the accounts  of\t the
\nrespondent-temple, and proceeded to observe
\n“It  is\t sufficient  to\t say that the  demand  made  of\t the
\npetitioners’ temple for the payment of a sum of Rs. 1, 1 62-
\n8  3 nP towards the audit of its accounts in respect of\t the
\nyear  1963 fasli does not rest upon any\t determination\tmade
\nunder  Section\t76(2)  and is  therefore  one  made  without
\ncompetence or the authority of law.”\n<\/p>\n
In so observing, in our judgment, the High Court erred.\t  It
\nwas  not the case of the respondents in their petition\tthat
\nthe  Commissioner had not determined the audit fee under  s.
\n76(2).\t In  paragraph-12  of the  petition  it\t was  merely
\nasserted that the fee determined by the Commissioner at\t the
\nrate of 1-1\/2% of the income was excessive.  It is true that
\nthe Commissioner may not under S. 76(2) of the Act impose  a
\nflat  rate  of\taudit  fee  on\tthe  religious\tinstitutions
\ngoverned by the provisions of the Act : he has to  determine
\naudit fee for meeting the costs of auditing the accounts  as
\na per-\n<\/p>\n
924<\/span><\/p>\n
centage\t of the income of each religious  institution.\t The
\nCommissioner  has to determine, having regard to  the  facts
\nand circumstances of each case, the fee (being not more than
\nthe maximum prescribed) for meeting the cost of audit of the
\ninstitution.   That  im.plies that the Commissioner  has  to
\nform  an  estimate  of\tthe reasonable\tcost  which  may  be
\nincurred in making an effective audit of the accounts of the
\nreligious  institution,\t and  to  state it  in\tterms  of  a
\npercentage  of the income.  The percentage of income  levied
\nas audit fee must of necessity be based on an estimate,\t and
\nthe  demand will not be struck down merely because it  turns
\nout that the amount demanded is not precisely equivalent  to
\nthe cost actually incurred for auditing the accounts.
\nSince  the High Court has proceeded upon the ground  of\t ab-
\nsence of determination by the Commissioner, which was  never
\npleaded,  and the High Court has not determined whether\t the
\naudit  fee  ;demanded was in truth for meeting the  cost  of
\nauditing,  the\taccounts of the\t Venkataramana\ttemple,\t the
\norder  passed by the High Court in respect of this  part  of
\nthe case must also be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
The order of the High Court is set aside and it is  directed
\nthat  the case do stand remanded to the High Court and\tthat
\nthe  High Court do dispose of the case according to law\t and
\nin the light of the observations made in this judgment.
\nCosts of this appeal will be costs in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
   Y.P.\t\t       Case remanded.\n\t\t\t    925<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1114, 1970 SCR (2) 917 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLEENDOWMENTS. MYS Vs. RESPONDENT: U. KRISHNA RAO & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/10\/1969 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2547,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969","datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969"},"wordCount":2547,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969","name":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & ... vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T13:49:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-hindu-religious-vs-u-krishna-rao-ors-on-17-october-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Hindu Religious & … vs U. Krishna Rao & Ors on 17 October, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=55707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}