9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6. On the same day, her account was debited with a sum of ₹ 1,01,000 and various sums totalling this amount were credited in the accounts of different persons in the books of the firm, among them being a sum of ₹ 15,000 credited in the account of the deity, Sri Parmanand Behariji Maharaj. The sums were credited in these several accounts at the instance of Nanhi Devi as gifts made by her. Excepting the deity, the recipients of the remaining sums were the descendants of the brother of Nanhi Devi's husband, Nanhi Devi herself being a childless widow. The transfer entries in the cash book of the firm were signed by the donees personally and where they were minors were signed by their natural guardians. In the case of the deity, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Sri Parmanand Behariji Thakurji Maharaj, by Srimathi Nanhi Devi?" What constitutes a "gift" has been defined in section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. That there may be a gift there must be a transfer of movable or immovable property. What is a "transfer of property" has been defined in section 5. It is an act by which a living person conveys property to one or more living persons. And the words "living person" have been defined in that provision to extend to a company or association or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Now it seems to us that a deity is neither a "living person" within the natural meaning of those words nor is it so within the scope of their extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of dedicating property to a Hindu deity it is not necessary that the property should be vested in a trustee or that possession should be handed over to a manager. All that is necessary is that the owner of the property should divest himself of his rights of ownership therein and that the property should be set apart for the object to which it is dedicated. In this view of the matter also the term "gift" as used in the Transfer of Property Act cannot be properly applied when property is dedicated to a Hindu deity. What is dedication under the notions of Hindu jurisprudence has been described by Mookerjee J. in Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra [1909] I.L.R. 37 Cal. 128, 155 (F.B.). in the following terms: &qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question whether a wakf made under the Muhammadan law was governed by the Transfer of Property Act and it was held that the transfer was governed by that enactment. It is not necessary for us to express ourselves on the correctness of that decision. It is sufficient to point out that the instant case must be governed by the principles obtaining under the Hindu law. Reference was also made to Shaukat Begam v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj (A.I.R. 1931 Oudh 14), but all that was decided in that case was that the provisions of section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act applied to gifts made directly as well as to gifts made through the intervention of a trust. The question whether the provisions of section 123 could apply at all to a Hindu religio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a gift as defined in section 122. This misconception is reflected in the question framed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the Commissioner then urges that crediting the sum of ₹ 15,000 in the account of the deity did not in law amount to the making of an endowment. It is well-settled that no writing is necessary to create an endowment unless the endowment is to be created by a will. It is also not necessary that a trust be created for that purpose. No religious ceremony such as sankalp or samarpan is necessary. All that is essential is that "firstly, property in respect of which the endowment is made must be designated with precision; secondly, the object or purpose of dedication should be clearly indicated; and, thirdly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the trust was made in the account books of the transferor himself and, therefore, remained entirely within his control, and it was not possible to say that the amount had been set apart and that he had divested himself of the ownership in it. As this question was never investigated by the income-tax authorities and no such objection to the endowment was raised before the Tribunal, and as it calls for findings of fact beyond those which already exist before us, it is not possible to say that Nanhi Devi did not succeed in perfecting the endowment to which she appears to have devotedherself. Consequently, we cannot entertain this contention of learned counsel for the Commissioner. Upon the reason given by us, we hold that there was no &q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
