https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193069 The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's authority to frame a scheme under Section 64 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959. It determined that the settlement deed by Chockalingam Pillai created a valid endowment for the idols, even without specific consecration ceremonies. The court clarified that the absence of such ceremonies does not invalidate an endowment if the settlor's intention is clear. The place where the idols were installed qualified as a "temple" under the Act, as it was used for public religious worship. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Deputy Commissioner's scheme was affirmed. en-us Wed, 29 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193069 The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's authority to frame a scheme under Section 64 of the Madras Act XXII of 1959. It determined that the settlement deed by Chockalingam Pillai created a valid endowment for the idols, even without specific consecration ceremonies. The court clarified that the absence of such ceremonies does not invalidate an endowment if the settlor's intention is clear. The place where the idols were installed qualified as a "temple" under the Act, as it was used for public religious worship. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Deputy Commissioner's scheme was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Jul 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193069