A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This Supreme Court judgment in Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimachari and Ors. v. Sri Agastheswaraswami Varu of Kolakalur [1960 AIR 622, 1960 SCR (2) 768], delivered on 15 January 1960, addresses the core issue of the nature of a grant concerning a religious endowment—specifically whether it was a personal grant burdened with religious service or a specific endowment dedicated entirely for the deity’s Kalyanotsavam. The apex court upheld the High Court’s view that the disputed land grant was not a personal inam but a specific endowment where the entire income was to be utilized for religious purposes. The Court emphasized the importance of inam registers as prime evidence in determining the intent of the grant. Further, it recognized the application of the cy-pres doctrine in religious endowments where income exceeds the original expected use. The Court also justified the amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, considering that all factual foundations were already on record. Thus, the Court affirmed the High Court’s decision directing the appellants to dedicate the entire income from the endowment to the religious trust.

Keywords: Specific Endowment, Cy-pres Doctrine, Kalyanotsavam, Inam Register, Religious Trust, Amendment of Pleadings, Hindu Religious Endowments Act

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Nanduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimachari and Ors. v. Sri Agastheswaraswami Varu of Kolakalur

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date
15 January 1960

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
J.L. Kapur, P.B. Gajendragadkar, and K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice J.L. Kapur

vii) Citation
[1960] 2 SCR 768; AIR 1960 SC 622

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Hindu Religious Endowments Act

• Doctrine of Cy-pres

• Civil Procedure Code – Amendment of Pleadings

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None explicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

• Constitutional Law

• Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments

• Civil Procedure

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case examines the character and intent behind a land grant given for religious purposes in colonial India. It arose out of a dispute concerning whether the income from certain lands was meant solely for private use with attached religious obligations or was a dedicated endowment for religious functions, particularly the Kalyanotsavam of a deity. The dispute escalated when the trustees allegedly failed in fulfilling their obligations, prompting the Hindu Religious Endowment Board’s trustee to initiate proceedings. The initial trial court partially upheld the claim but limited the enforceability of the full income. However, the High Court reversed this to hold that the entire income belonged to the deity, invoking religious trust doctrines. The Supreme Court affirmed this approach, applying cy-pres, recognizing inam registers as paramount evidentiary sources, and emphasizing form over technicality in pleadings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondent, acting through a trustee appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, instituted a suit to recover arrears of income from the suit property for the years 1942-1944 and to secure future payments of 160 bags of paddy annually or its equivalent value. It was contended that the land constituted a specific endowment dedicated to the deity Sri Agastheswaraswami Varu at Kolakalur for conducting Kalyanotsavam and other rituals. The appellants, in possession of the land, claimed it was a personal inam with a burden of service to the deity but not a complete dedication. The trial court found the land to be a specific endowment but did not mandate the entire income for religious purposes. On appeal, the High Court allowed an amendment of the plaint to include a declaratory relief and held the entire income as belonging to the deity. The Supreme Court, affirming the High Court, stressed the significance of historical inam documents and the intent of the donor.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i. Whether the land grant was a personal inam burdened with service, or a specific endowment solely for the deity.
ii. Whether the amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage to include a declaration was legally permissible.
iii. Whether the entire income from the land was to be spent on the deity’s rituals, or only a part.
iv. Whether the application of the cy-pres doctrine was valid in expanding the scope of religious utility of the endowment.
v. Whether the original suit was maintainable under the law given the nature of the trust and the pleadings.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for Petitioners submitted that the grant was a personal grant made to their ancestor N. Buchayya, with an obligation to perform limited services, such as pulling the deity’s car during festivals. They argued that this obligation did not transform the grant into a specific endowment.
ii. They asserted that the High Court erred in allowing an amendment to the plaint, which materially altered the nature of the relief sought after the completion of the trial.
iii. They contended that no formal declaration was sought in the original suit that the property was a specific endowment, thus rendering the suit procedurally defective.
iv. They claimed that only a nominal portion of the income was ever utilized for Kalyanotsavam, and the remainder always accrued to the family.
v. They pointed to specific language in the Inam Fair Register such as “to be confirmed so long as the service is performed” to argue the grant was personal and revocable, not permanent or absolute.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the historical documents like the Inam Statement of 1859-60 and Fair Register of 1860 showed unequivocally that the lands were granted for the Kalyanotsavam of the deity.
ii. They argued that the grant exhausted the income at the time of its issuance, indicating that the entire proceeds were meant for religious use.
iii. They relied on judicial precedents, including Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Thadikonda Koteswara Rao, AIR 1937 Mad 852, to assert that grants dedicated to deity services constituted specific endowments.
iv. They maintained that the amendment to the plaint sought no new cause of action but merely formalized the existing claim, supported by pleadings and evidence already on record.
v. They requested the application of the cy-pres doctrine, citing N. Sankaranarayanan Pillai v. Board of Commissioners, LR 74 IA 230, to justify applying the entire enhanced income for religious use.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i. Hindu Religious Endowments Act – Governs charitable and religious institutions in India, including the administration of endowments.
ii. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Provides for amendment of pleadings.
iii. Doctrine of Cy-pres – Allows courts to apply the income of a trust towards purposes that are as near as possible to the donor’s original intent.
iv. Law of Trusts – Especially the principle of specific charitable trusts, applicable in religious endowments.
v. Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 91 and 92 – Governs admissibility of documentary evidence like inam registers in proving legal intent.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i. The Court ruled that when specific charitable payments exhaust the entire income at the time of grant, it is fair to infer that the donor intended the whole income to go to charity.
ii. The Court upheld the view that the inam register entries and documentary evidence substantiated the grant as a specific endowment, not a personal one.
iii. The Court held that amendments to the plaint are permissible when factual foundations already exist and no prejudice is caused, especially when the relief flows from original pleadings.
iv. It reaffirmed the application of cy-pres in religious endowment law to ensure the surplus income continues to benefit the deity in a manner consistent with original religious intentions.

b. OBITER DICTA 
i. The Court observed that when two interpretations of a historical document are possible, the Supreme Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts.
ii. It stated that religious endowments must be interpreted in light of their spiritual objectives, especially when the property is managed by hereditary trustees.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Historical inam records must be treated as crucial documentary evidence in identifying the nature of a religious grant.

• Where pleadings establish the material facts and issues are framed accordingly, amendments of prayer clauses can be permitted even at a later stage.

• The Cy-pres doctrine applies where income exceeds original use and should be channeled to related charitable objectives of the endowment.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Court’s analysis in this case reinforced the sacred character of religious endowments in Indian jurisprudence. It clarified the legal threshold distinguishing personal inams from specific endowments, anchoring the ruling on intent of the donor, exhaustion of income, and longstanding practice. By accepting amendments at the appellate level and applying the doctrine of cy-pres, the Court expanded the scope of justice in favor of spiritual and charitable continuity, marking a significant precedent in the Hindu endowment jurisprudence.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Thadikonda Koteswara Rao, AIR 1937 Mad 852
[2] N. Sankaranarayanan Pillai v. Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, (1947) LR 74 IA 230

b. Important Statutes Referred
[3] Hindu Religious Endowments Act
[4] Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17
[5] Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 91 & 92
[6] Law of Trusts and Doctrine of Cy-pres
[7] Principles of Tudor on Charities (5th Ed.)
[8] Halsbury’s Laws of England – Vol. 4, Para 624, p. 303