Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- By a firman, dated October 25, 1934. Nawab Sir Hamidullah Khan, the then Ruler of Bhobal State, in appreciation of the long and distinguished services of Sir Liaqat Ali gave to the latter, in addition to the grant of pensions, the residential house in question as "inayat ataa". Sir Liaqat who was already residing in this house, continued therein till he died, issueless and widowless, in March 1947. One Syed Mohammed Ali who was the son of Sir Liaqat s father s sister also used to reside in this house with the deceased. After Sir Liaqat s death. Syed Mohammed Ali continued in occupation of this house as one of the nine heirs of the deceased, till he was "forcibly and unlawfully" ejected in May 1947 by the then Government of Bhopal. Paying a "deaf-ear" to the repeated demands of Syed Mohammed Ali for restoration of possession, the Government "peristed in the act of trespass" and continued in illegal possession of the house. After his ouster, Syed Mohammed Ali also died sometime in 1947.

2. On April 30, 1947, the Nawab of Bhopal signed the Agreement of Merger and the State of Bhopal was taken over by the Chief Commissioner on behalf of the Government of India on June 1, 1949. Thereafter, on November 1, 1956 the territory of the former Bhopal State became a part of the re-organized State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. On August 21, 1957, after serving a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are the son, daughter and widow, respectively, of Syed Mohammed Ali, it instituted the suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for recovery of possession of the house on the footing that under the firman, it had been gifted absolutely by the Nawab to Sir Liaqat Ali who died possessed of it as full owner and on the donee s death, it was inherited by Syed Mohammed Ali who, in turn was succeeded by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Syed Mohammed Ali was "forcibly and unlawfully" dispossessed by the Government in May 1947.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant State on the ground, inter alia, that the Ruler s firman "did not confer absolute title on late Liaqat Ali", but only a life-interest in the house.

5. The Additional District Judge who tried the suit found on a construction of the firman (Ex.P-1), that the suit house had been gifted by the Ruler to late Sir Liaqat Ali absolutely, and, in consequence, decreed the suit. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed that finding and held that "on a true construction of the Firman (Ex. P-1), the grantee, the late Sir Syed Liaqat Ali was given only an estate for life in the suit property, and the plaintiffs as his heirs had no right to inherit it as his property." In the result, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.

6. On a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs have now come in appeal to this Court.

7. The main issue framed by the trial court was in these terms:

"Was the house in dispute given by the Ruler to Shri Liaqat Ali deceased absolutely or for life only?"

8. The decision of this issue turns on an interpretation of the Firman (Ext. P-1), dated October 24, 1934 whereby the Ruler gave this house to the deceased.

9. The original Firman is in Urdu. As rendered into English by the courts below, it reads:

"Hon ble Motamid-u-Sultan Nasirul-Mulk Syed Sir Liyaqat Ali"

"Looking into considerations with gratitude your valuable services and faithful sacrifices which you have rendered for more than 30 years and considering the economic condition of the State you have served without remuneration for the last 2 years, your application (for pension) is granted. You are granted permission to retire in lieu of your valuable services from 1 st October 1934. You should hand over charge of Mushir-ul-Muhami Rubkari Khas to Honourable Shoeb Qureshi.

Besides that pension you are entitle