Back
1969 Supreme(SC) 437
Supreme Court Of India
PT. RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA
Versus
SHREE MAHADEOJI MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALL KANPUR
Decided On : October 15, 1969
Headnote:
Land Laws – Partition – Appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and decree of the High court of Allahabad, and relates to a piece of land together with buildings thereupon including an Akhara (wrestling ground ). – Property is situate in Kanpur and bears at present Municipal – Whether he purchased one such groveland and divided it into two, or purchased two such groveland and amalgamated them into one is not quite certain – Held, He upheld the bequest on the ground not of promoting athletic games but on the ground that the object of the charity was education in the school and that training in such games would be part of the educational activities of the school. – There is, however, one decision of a marginal nature, if court may say so, namely, In re Daley v. Lloyds Bank Ltd. where a gift for holding an annual chess tournament limited to boys and youngmen under the age of 21 years residing in a particular locality was upheld. – But that was done after a good deal of hesitation and only by basing it on the ground that training of youth in a game of skill which also required concentration was part of their education. – Court is not in a position to agree with the High court that the trust created by Mani Ram was a religious trust in favour of the two idols of Lord Shive and Mahabirji. – Court conclusion is that the dominant intention of the settler was to set up and maintain an Akhara, the said two idols as also the Tasweer of Hazrat Ali having been installed there only to attract wrestlers of the communities. – That being the position, reluctant though we are, particularly in view of the fact thatthe said Akhara has been maintained for nearly a century, court find it extremely difficult, in the absence of any authority, textual or by way of a precedent, to hold that the dedication in question was for either a religious or charitable purpose as recognised by Hindu law. – For the reasons aforesaid court is constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the High court. – Appeal Allowed
Judgment
SHELAT, J.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, by certificate, is directed against the judgment and decree of the High court of Allahabad, dated 5/08/1965 and relates to a piece of land together with buildings thereupon including an Akhara (wrestling ground ). The property is situate in Kanpur and bears at present Municipal No. 26/72, its original No. being 26/30.
( 2 ) SOME time prior to 1830, one Mani Ram, well-known during his lifetime as a wrestler, purchased a groveled with trees standing thereon. Whether he purchased one such groveland and divided it into two, or purchased two such groveland and amalgamated them into one is not quite certain. Along with this land he was possessed of other properties adjacent to the said groveland. It appears that being himself a wrestler and fond of that sport Mani Ram purchased the said groveland for setting up and maintaining an Akhara where wrestlers of both Hindu and Muslim communities could come for wrestling. Besides the income from the said groveland, Mani Ram spent large amounts for promoting wrestling and to that end made a number of disciples.
( 3 ) HE had by his first wife six sons and a seventh son, Mangali Prasad, a wrestler of repute, from his second wife, Rahas Kaur. By a deed of partition, dated June 23, 1830 he divided all his properties into eight shares giving one share to each of his seven sons and retained the 8th share for himself and the said Rahas Kaur. This 8th share included the said groveland on which stood the said Akhara as also certain other structures. The Akhara ground was bounded by a compound wall with a archgate to enter into. It appears that with the object of attracting wrestlers he installed on the archgate an idol of Mahabirji. a Shiv Lingam over a small room which stood next to the said gate, and a Tasweer of Hazrat Ali. The two idols and the Tasweer were obviously intended to give a religious bias to the Akhara, the first two to attract Hindu wrestlers and the third to attract Muslim wrestlers. The said deed of partition stated with regard to the said l/8th share and the said groveland that none of his seven sons would have any interest or right in them as the "one eight (l/8th) share and the grove, which is a waqf property and which I, the executing, have taken for myself I, the executant and my second wedded wife shall remain owner thereof till our life time". It would thus appear that even before 1840 Mani Ram had already dedicated the said groveland for the purposes of the said Akhara and that was why he referred to it as waqf property. Mani Ram managed the said groveland in the aforesaid manner using the income thereof for the said Akhara. On his death the property came under the management of his widow, the said Rahas Kaur. On May 12, 1862 Rahas Kaur made a will in which after reciting the partition deed of 1830 she stated as follows :"he (Mani Ram) dedicated two groves---situate in Phikhana Bazar, which has Asthan of Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and Tasweer of Hazrat Ali---The Akhara and Asthan -- -up to this day are continuing as theretofore, and Mangli Prasad, my son, is unparallel in wrestling. In order that it may continue I execute a will that (paper torn) shall be spent over it as mentioned in the will of my husband. The Akhara and Asthan shall continue as heretofore. "the will then provided that the management of the Akhara and the Asthan should remain with Mangli Prasad and authorised Mangli Prasad to 702 appoint managers after him from the issues of Mani Ram and thus the management should go on from generation to generation.
( 4 ) FROM a deed of lease, dated June 28, 1862, executed by one Mst. Tejia, it appears that the said groveland was given on lease to her at the annual rent of Rs. 23. 00 by Mangli Prasad. The deed of lease also described the said groveland as having "asthan of Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and Taswir of Hazrat Ali" and as having been dedicated to them.
( 5 ) IN 1862, one Bansgopal filed suit No. 490 of 1862 again
