SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others, Appellants
Versus
Kaliram Das (dead) by his legal representatives and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1273 of 1966, D/- 22-11-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D.N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. Sukumar Ghose, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 (a), 2 (a), 3, 8 and 19.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 92 - Property - Grant - Heirs and Descendants - Endowment Created for Religious and Charitable Purposes - Whether suit is hit by Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure - Whether Ext. 1, Copper Plate, has been correctly interpreted to hold that original grant created by Ahom King was of nature of Dharmottar grant or a religious trust for benefit - Whether it was a Dharmottar grant or a religious trust for benefit of Satra or that it was merely a personal gift in favour of Gadapani – Held, Learned counsel for plaintiffs has sought to raise same points which were agitated before High Court - First one relates to applicability of sec. 92 of Civil Procedure Code - Second relates to correct interpretation of terms of original grant with regard to its true nature, namely, whether it was a Dharmottar grant or a religious trust for benefit of the Satra or that it was merely a personal gift in favour of Gadapani - Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure provides that in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature or where direction of court is deemed necessary for administration of any such trust, consent of Advocate General has to be obtained for institution of suit by two or more persons having an interest in trust - It is quite obvious that question involved in this case was quite different from one under examination by Court - It was not argued at any stage in present case including appeal before High Court that by virtue of provisions and other facts relied upon in aforesaid judgment, mere fact that lands were described as Brahmottar would be personal property of those in whose names they were shown in revenue records - Nor has Court attention been drawn to any entries from revenue records produced in present case which would show exact and precise terms in which those entries had been made - Lastly it was contended that even in plaint lands were admitted to have been held under a Nisaf Khiraj or Nispi-Kheraj patta and that according to entire history and other facts stated in Jibon Chandra Sarma Doloi s case, such a patta could be held only in a personal capacity - Difficulty again is that no such contention was raised before High Court or before any of Court below – Court is unable in these circumstances to either allow this point to be agitated or to enter into its discussion - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal by certificate from the judgement of the Assam and Nagaland High Court arising out of a suit which was filed as far back as May 1948.
2. The main controversy arises out of a grant on a Copper plate made by Ahom King Maharaj Sibasingha of some landed property in the year 1663 Saka Era corresponding to 1741 A.D. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity as Bhaktas. According to the allegations in the plaint this grant was made by the King in the name of one Gadapani Bhattachariya for the establishment of Satra (Vaishnavic institution). It was made for the propagation of Nama Dharma and for continuance of Saraban Kirtan Dharma. Defendants 1 to 20 were alleged to be the heirs of Gadapani Bhattachariya. The Plaintiffs claimed that they were the descendants of the 10 Bhakats who were mentioned in the Copper plate creating the endowment, the name of the Satra being Sat Sangee Satra. The original grant was in respect of 79 puras of land which would be equivalent to 316 bighas. It was rent-free. In the copper plate the grant was termed as Brahmottar. After the British rule commenced there was an enquiry in which the grandson of the original grantee (Gadapani Bhattachariya) made a claim of 83 puras of land with 10 bighas of Sat Sangee Satra. This was confirmed by the British Government. During the demarcation survey of 1881, the area was reduced to 304 bighas and in the survey and settlement of 1884-85 it was shown as 313 bighas roughly. In the subsequent settlement of 1905-06, the land was assessed to half revenue, known as Nispi Kheraj. The area covered by Nispi Kheraj or Nisf Kheraj was 243 bighas. During the current 30 year settlement the Nispi Kheraj land was shown to cover an area of 230 bighas odd and the suit was confined to that area.
3. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the grant, as a matter of fact, was a Dharmottar grant though called Brahmottar in the Copper plate. In other words, it was an endowment created for religious and charitable purposes and it did not confer benefit only on the grantee (Gadapani Bhattachariya) or his heirs and descendants. The Sat Sangee Satra to be established on the basis of this grant was known as Bhanukuchi Satra along with a Nam ghar. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants were interfering with their rights relating to the Satra and were also not properly repairing the Nam ghar etc. It was alleged that some of the plaintiffs were still living in the land covered by the Nispi-Kheraj patta. Paragraph 12 of the plaint may be reproduced:-
"12. In fact the land described in the schedule of the disputed patta is the Dharmottar land gifted to the Bhanukuchi Satsangi Satra. The lands have been absolutely endorsed for religious purpose, hence the defendants have not possessed any title of their own over those. They are the trustees only on behalf of the Satra. They are bound to maintain the said Satra with the income of these lands by observing the Doul festival and the usual Nam-Kirtan and the plaintiffs as the Bhakats of the said Satra are entitled to possess their own basti and paddy lands etc. by going and observing the Nam-Kirtan in the Satra house of Dag No. 472 and the Doul festival by erecting the Doul stage as before in Dag No. 428. Hence it is necessary to obtain a decree after a declaration from the Civil Court and with the said end and view it is necessary to obtain possession from the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. If it is necessary the plaintiffs will file a scheme case afterwards".
The relief which was claimed was for a declaration that the disputed land was a gift to the Bhanukuchi Sat Sang as mentioned in paragraph 12 and for possession.
4. In the written statement the position taken up was that the disputed land was not Dharmottar. It was a property gifted to late Gadapani Brahmin, the predecessor of the defendants. Gadapani Bhattachariya was a good religious minded Brahmin and the Ahom King, fo
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.