KRISHNA IYER, J. - (1.) THE fiscal - not the philosophical - implications of Jesus' pragmatic injunction 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's - fall for jural exploration in these appeals, by special leave, the appellant being the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, and the Respondent, Sree Jagannathji and the subject-matter the taxability of the deity Jugannathhi by the State under the Income-tax Act, 1922, beyond the admitted point. To appreciate the exigibility issue, we have to flash back to 19th Century Bengal and the then prevailing societal ethos of affluent Hindu piety, and we find ourselves in the spiritual-legal company of Raja Rajendra Mullick, at once holy and wealthy, who, in advancing years, executed a comprehensive will to promote his cherished godly wishes and to provide for his secularly dear cause and near relatives. THE construction of this testamentary complex of dispositions and location of its destination are the principal exercises in these appeals.
(2.) RAJA Renjendra Mullick Bahadur of Calcutta executed his last will and testament on 21 February 1887. While the author of the will was a Bengali brahmin of the last century, the draftsman of the document was John Hart, an English Solicitor. While the author's wishes are usually transmitted into the deed by the draftsman, the diction and accent are flavoured by the draftsman's ink. So it happens that this will represents pious Bengali wishes and dispositions - but draped in an English Solicitor's legalese. The Court's function in such an ambiguous situation is to sheer clear of the confusion imparted by the diction and to reach the real intendment (of the testator). Such an essay in ascertaining the true intent of RAJA Rajendra Mullick is fraught with difficulties and our guideline has to be to pick it up from the conspectus of clauses - rather than from particular expressions or isolated features. Only the totality tells the story of the author's mind as he unburdened himself of his properties for causes and purposes dear to his heart. The Court's discerning loyalty is not to the formalistic language used in drawing up the deed but to the intentions which the disponer desired should take effect in the manner he designed. This back-drop of observations made, we proceed to a broad delineation of the actual provisions. The munificent testator had enormous estates, lavish charity, piety aplenty and a large family. So he trifurcated his assets as it were, provided for religious objects, eleemosynary purposes and members of his family. The last was distinctly and separately dealt with and we are not concerned with the bequests so made. But the first two were more or less lugged together and ample properties earmarked therefor. How did he engineer into legal effect these twin purposes? Did he create an absolute debutter of these properties, totally dedicating them to the deity whose devotees he and his father were, coupled with several directions, addressed to the shebaits, for application of the income for performance of stated pujas, execution of public charitable projects and payment of remuneration for sheba plus liberal grants and facilities to the sons and widows of sons who were objects of his bounty? Or did he really create a trust in the sense of the English law vesting the whole estate in trustees saddled with obligations to expend the income for enumerated items, godly and philanthrophic, creating but a partial debutter? This is the key question calling for adjudication but an alternative but interlaced- issue also arises. Assuming that a total debutter had been created, did the will contain directions for expenditure which siphoned off the income, as it accrued, for specified objects and entities in such manner that by such overriding diversion at the source, such income did not get into the hands of Lord Jagannath qua. His income but reached Him merely as collector of those receipts to be disbursed for meeting those paramount claims and charged for those destined uses? Or could it be the true meaning of the clauses that the whole income was to be derived by the deity but later to be applied by the human agencies representing Him for fulfilling objects, secular and sacred? A skeletal picture of the complex of provisions of the will has to be projected now for a better understanding of the pros and cons of the controversy. The will opens with the words: "I hereby dedicate and make debutter my Thakoorbaree' and mentions a mansion which is to be the abode of his God. "I hereby give, dedicate and make debutter all the jewels.... heretofore used, for the workship of the Thakoors... ' is another recital whereby valuables are dedicated. These are for direct use and both the Lord's mansion and the Lord's adornments yield great spiritual bliss but no secular income Prima facie, the language is unmistakable and a full dedication and, argues Shri Sharma for the Revenue the creation of absolute debutter is an unchangeable inference. Equally indisputable is the character of the last set of bequests to his sons (save one who has been disinherited) and widows of deceased sons and these are admittedly out of the area of dispute before us. But in between lies the estate (including securities) which yields high income and is disposed of in terms which lend themselves to contrary constructions, marginal obscurity and conceptual mixup of ideas borrowed from English and Hindu law. I do hereby give, dedicate and make debutter in the name and for the worship of my Thakoor Sree Sree Jagnath Jee the following properties' - so run the words which are followed by a list of properties and a string of directions addressed to 'shebaits and trustees' or 'shebaits or trustees' or these two indifferently and indiscriminately mentioned singly. He even directed a board of trustees to be constituted in the event of male heirs failing, to take over shebaitship and execution of the trusts - and here and there referred to trusts under the deed. Nor were all the incomes to be devoted to pooja. His cultivated and compassionate mind had many kindly concerns and finer pursuits.
(3.) THE enlightened donor appears to have had an aristocratic and aesthetic flair for promoting the joy of life and a philanthropic passion to share it, even posthumously, with the public at large. His charitable disposition seems to have overpowered his love of castemen and his kindness for living creatures claimed a share of his generosity; THEse noble and multiple instincts persuaded him to make an art collection which could be reckoned as among the best an individual could be proud of anywhere in the world and these paintings and sculptures, he directed, shall be kept open for public delight, free of charge. He maintained a glorious garden which he wished should be kept in fine trim and be hospitable for any member of the public who liked to relax in beautiful surrounds. His compassionate soul had, in lofty sentiment of fellow-feeling, collected birds and non-carnivorous animals. But, after him, the aviary and menagerie were to be taken care of and lovers of birds and animals were, according to his testamentary direction, permitted to seek retreat and pleasure among these natural environs. Of couse, he rewarded his sons and widows sumptuously, the lay-out on the rituals of worship consuming but a portion of the total income. At this stage, the litigative journey may be sketched to indicate how the dispute originated, developed and gained access to this Court. The story of this tax entanglement began nearly two decades ago with the I. T. O. issuing notices and the assessee deity responding with 'nil' returns under S. 22 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. 1922 for the 1957-58. A portion however was, by legitimate concession of the Income Tax Department, carved out of the total income as non-taxable. According to the High Court. "When the proceedings for the assessment year 1955-56 were pending before the Income Tax Officer, the assessee had filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and had obtained an interim stay against the said proceedings. It appears that on the 9/10/1961 in terms of the settlement arrived at between the Income Tax Department and the assessee the interim stay of proceedings was vacated. It was recorded in the said order that part of the income of the assessee which would be proved before the Income Tax Authorities to have been applied in connection with (a) feeding of the poor. (b) subscription to other charities enuring for the benefit of the public would be' exempted under S. 4 (3) (i) of Indian Income-tax Act, 1922." We regard this stand of the Revenue as correct in the light of the provisions of S. 4 (3) (i) and hold, in limine, that whatever the outcome of the contest the amounts spent on poor feeding and other public charitable purposes are outside the reach of the tax net and are totally exempt. We may, in fairness, state here that counsel for the Revenue, Shri Sharma, rightly agreed that the correct legal position, on a sound understanding of S.4 (3) (i) of the Act, was that these charitable expenditures were totally deductible from the computation for fixing the tax. ;