Religious dedication and dharmakartha appointment did not require registration when no present conveyance of immovable property was created.

An instrument recording an already completed dedication of property to a deity and appointing the donee as dharmakartha did not amount to a present conveyance of immovable property requiring registration. The document was construed as preserving a future right to seek a formal conveyance, not as transferring title at once. The analysis also noted that a religious trust falls outside the Indian Trusts Act, and that dedication to the Almighty is not a transfer to a living person under the Transfer of Property Act. The Madras line of authority on dedication to an idol or for charity without writing was followed, applying stare decisis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the instrument evidencing dedication of property to the deity and appointment of a dharmakartha required registration, and whether the transaction was invalid for want of a registered conveyance.

Analysis: The document, read as a whole, recorded that the religious dedication had already been made and that the donee was constituted dharmakartha, while also preserving a right to call for a formal conveyance later. Such an instrument did not itself operate as a present conveyance of immovable property requiring registration. A religious trust fell outside the Indian Trusts Act, and a dedication to the Almighty was not a transfer to a living person within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. The long-established Madras decisions holding that dedication to an idol or for charity need not be in writing were followed, and the principle of stare decisis was applied.

Conclusion: Ex. I did not require registration, and the dedication was valid. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was set aside and the trial decree restored.

---