IMPORTANT POINT
The grant under Ex. A-1 is a personal grant to Ram Ballabh as rightly held by the High Court. Appellants court succeeed in challenge of Title of respondents who is succession of Ram Ballabh.

Headnote:Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952-Sections 22 and 23 and 2(d)-Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1954- Gant and Ex. A1 as Udik Jagir - Whether is a personal grant to Ram Ballabh or to an institution or a grant in Trust for members of Ram Sanehi -High Court holding it was a personal grant-Whether correct? (Yes) -Whether the fact that Raja at the time of grant was minor of any relevance? (No) subsequent events whether change the nature of grant? (No)-Whether there is any admission by respondent that grant was not a personal grant? (No)-Whether grant was in nature of Trust? (No)-Effect -High Court was right-Appeals dismissed.
       Held (On interpretation of Ex-A-1) : It is thus clear that the grant is to Swami Ram Ballabh. It is also evident that the deed as such does not speak of religious services by Ram Ballabh or his successors. The word Ram Sanehi which appears along with name of the grantee is merely to indicate the sect which the grantee was professing. It is also noticed that the grant is not made for the benefit of the persons belonging to Ram Sanehi sect. In short it is a pure and simple personal grant to Swami Ram Ballabh. It is worth noticing that at the time of grant there was neither any temple nor samadhi nor foot prints etc. it is nobody s case that the jagir property was the abode of Ram Sanehis. Therefore, the grant could not be one for any institution or for persons of Ram Sanchi scat. (Para 13)
       Held also : The fact that the Raja was minor at the time of grant is wholly irrelevant to the validity of the grant. (Para 14)
       Held consequently : But so far as the grant is concerned, we have no hesitation in approving the interpretation of Ext.A-1 by the authorities and the High Court that it was a personal grant to Swami Ram Ballabh. It appears to us that of the categories of the Jagirs in Rajasthan Udak Jagir used to be granted for secular purposes whereas Bhog Jagir" was being granted for religious purposes. Be that as it may, we have held that under Ext.A-1, a personal grant of Udak Jagir was made by the Seventh Maji Bhattiyaniji in favour of Swami Ram Ballabh. The mutation in the name of the successor we governed by the Jaipur Matmi Rules and on October 19, 1964 the State of Rajasthan granted matmi in favour of the first respondent on the recommendation of the Jagir Commissioner as endorsed by the Board of Revenue. (Paras 15, 16)
       Held (on question of admission) : An admission of a fact certainly binds the maker of it and not an admission on a question of law. We have already referred to Section 2(d) of the Jagirs Act. (Para 17)
       A plain reading of sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) shows that the terms and conditions contained in any order or instrument granting, or recognising the grant of jagir falls within the meaning of existing jagir law. Thus, the claim of the first repondent based on erroneous interpretation of Ext.A-1 - existing jagir law that Jagir property is a public trust, cannot be treated as an admission binding on him so as to deprive him of the benefit of true interpretation of the grant under Exl.A-1 by us that it is a personal grant to Ram Ballabh (Para 18)
       Held (on question of Trust) : In Ext.A-1, quoted above, we are unable to find any recital indicating that the grant is made for the benefit of any groups or sect of persons and that any obligation was annexed to the ownership of Jagir property held by Ram Ballabh so as to hold that Jagir property for their benefit. On the contrary, Ram Ballabh is named as grantee without any conditions attached to the grant. It is, therefore, not possible to accept that the grant was in the nature of a trust. As such the further question whether it was a public trust or private trust does not arise. (Para 20)
       Held finally : For all these reasons, we approve the judgments and orders of the High Court under challenge and find no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed, but on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. (Para 21)

ORDER

These two appeals arise from two judgments and orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1994 is from the Judgment and order of the said High Court in D.B.CWP No.2150 of 1992 dated September 1, 1992 and Civil Appeal No.1634 of 1994 is from the judgment of the Division Bench in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.44 of 1992 dated September 1992. The subject-matter and the contesting respondent are common in these appeals.

2. To comprehend the controversy in these appeals, it will be useful to refer to the facts giving rise to them. The appellants in these appeals are that tenants of the first respondent in different portions of the Jagir property. They have suffered orders of eviction and are up in arms against him. They have lodged two prongs attack on his title to the Jagir property which will be referred to presently.

3. In Samvat 1893, on the request of one Swami Ram Ballabh, land of an extent of 6 bighas and 4 biswas situated in Town Sawai Jaipur, outside Kishanpole, was granted as Udak Jagir (referred to in this judgment as the Jagir property ) by the Seventh Maji Bhattiyaniji of Jaipur, during the period of minority of the ruler, in favour of Swami Ram Ballabh, a chela of Swami Ram Dassji Ram Snehi. The first respondent claims that the said grant was a personal grant in favour of Ram Bllabh and not in favour of any institution. The appellants contest that claim and plead that it was a grant to a religious institution which came to be known as "Chotta Ram Dwara or at any rate a grant in favour of all those professing Ram Sanehi sect. It is not in dispute that after the grant of the Jagir property to Ram Ballabhi matmi (succession) to the same was being granted on the death of the holder in favour of his Chela (disciple) by the Ruler or the State, as the case may be, but it is stated that all of them were Ram Sanehi and remained celibates throughout their lives. The present disputes arose on the death of Ram Narain Das in 1954, who was the last holder of the Jagir property and a celibate when his Chela, the first respondent, a married person, claimed matmi (succession) in his favour under Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 which were applicable during the relevant period. The apparent reason for opposing his succession is that he had married. However, the State Government sanctioned matmi in his favour on October 9. 1964.

4. While the case of first respondent for matmi was pending, two proceedings under different enactments were initiated in which the appellants objected to the claims of the first respondent. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we consider it unnecessary to refer to the various orders passed at different stages of those proceedings except to the ultimate orders passed in them.

5. The first is under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (for short the Jagirs Act ) which came into force on February 18, 1952. By virute of the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on November I, 1958 Jagirs of the category which includes; Udak Jagir vested in the State under Section 22 of the Jagirs Act except those exempted under Section 23 of that Act. The first respondent applied for exemption of Jagir property (Chotta Ram Dwara) under Section 23(1) of the Jagirs Act to the Jagir Commissioner. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1994 opposed it by filing objections on September 14, 1987. By order dated March 31, 1989 the Jagir Commissioner held that the Jagir property was a private personal grant to Ram Ballabh. That order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue on the appeal filed by the appellant. By its order dated September 1, 1992 the High Court, in Writ Petition 2150 of 1992, upheld the order of the Board of Revenue. That order of the High Court is assailed in Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1994.

6. The second is under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act 1954. The first respondent filed an application before the Assistant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2001 Supreme(SC) 217

IMPORTANT POINTThe grant under Ex. A-1 is a personal grant to Ram Ballabh as rightly held by the High Court. Appellants court succeeed in challenge of Title of respondents who is succession of Ram Ballabh.

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
The grant under Ex. A-1 is a personal grant to Ram Ballabh as rightly held by the High Court. Appellants court succeeed in challenge of Title of respondents who is succession of Ram Ballabh.