Back
1937 Supreme(SC) 91
Privy Council At Ajmer Merwara
Sir George Rankin, Sir Shadi Lal, Justice Lord Thankerton, JJ.
Syed Altaf Hussain and others -Appellant
Versus
Diwan Syed Ali Rasul Ali Khan and others -Resopndent
Appeal No. 8 of 1936
Decided On : 20-12-1937
Dold, Douglas Grant, T.L. Wilson and Co., Mrs. J. Clark, W. Wallach , Sir Thomas Strangman, A.M. Dunne
Rights to offerings attached to a spiritual office are non-alienable by a predecessor and bind only the current incumbent. Long-standing practice prevails over unauthenticated ancient decrees in determining the distribution of such offerings.
Headnote:(A) Religious Endowments Act, 1863 - Distribution of offerings at a shrine - Right to receive a share of offerings attached to an office - Alienation of such right by a predecessor not binding on successors - Perpetual lease of share in offerings held invalid against subsequent incumbent.
(B) Property of the shrine - Distinction between offerings for the specific use of the shrine and divisible offerings - Articles presented for the use of the shrine, such as coverings for the tomb and precious vessels, are the property of the shrine and not divisible between the office holder and servitors - Claim that custody money must be paid for such articles to become shrine property rejected for lack of evidence.
(C) Distribution of offerings - Claim of exclusive right based on an ancient decree rejected where the decree is of doubtful authenticity and contradicted by long-standing practice - No distinction between offerings made at the foot of the tomb and those made elsewhere in the shrine.
(D) Servitors' rights - Entitlement of servitors to coins of small value as rewards for services - Coins not exceeding two annas in value, regardless of metal, belong exclusively to the servitors.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between the successor of a spiritual office holder and the servitors of a shrine regarding the distribution of offerings. The predecessor had granted a perpetual lease of the office holder's share of offerings to the servitors. The current office holder challenged the validity of this lease. Additionally, the parties disputed the classification of offerings (shrine property vs. divisible property) and the specific shares of coins of small value.
Findings of Court:
The right to offerings is attached to the office and cannot be alienated to bind successors. Offerings intended for the shrine's use belong to the shrine. The office holder cannot exclude servitors based on an unauthenticated ancient decree. Servitors are entitled to all coins of two annas or less.
Issues: Whether a perpetual lease of a share in offerings granted by a predecessor binds the successor; whether offerings for the use of the shrine are divisible; whether an ancient decree grants exclusive rights to the office holder; and whether servitors are entitled to small-value coins.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rights attached to an office are not personal and cannot be permanently alienated by one incumbent to the detriment of successors. It further ruled that long-standing practice outweighs an unauthenticated ancient decree and that rewards for service (small coins) belong to the servitors.
Result: Appeal by the office holder dismissed; appeal by the servitors allowed only to the extent of entitlement to coins not exceeding two annas in value.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
religious endowments
-
administration of shrines
- distribution of offerings
-
administration of shrines
-
property law
-
alienation
- rights attached to office
-
alienation
-
evidence
- customary practice
Sir Shadi Lal:-
The dispute in this case relates to the distribution of the offerings made by the pilgrims to the tomb of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti at Ajmer. The tomb in question, generally known as Durgah Khwaja Sahib, Ajmer, has for centuries past been a place of pilgrimage for devout Moslems; and the presents made by the pilgrims to the Durgah have led to frequent disputes between the Sajjada Nashin (called Diwan Sahib) on the one side, and the Khadims (servitors) on the other side. The Sajjada Nashin is a descendant of the Saint, while the Khadims are the descendants of the original disciples of the Saint. In September 1912, Diwan Sharfuddin, the predecessor of the present Sajjada Nashin, granted to the Khadims a perpetual lease of the Sajjada Nashin's share of the offerings made at the Shrine for Rs. 500 a year. For about ten years there was no controversy between the Sajjada Nashin and the Khadims about the division of the offerings. In 1922 Diwan Sharfuddin died and was succeeded by Diwan Syed Ale Rasul Ali Khan, who refused to recognize the validity of the lease granted by his predecessor in respect of the Sajjada Nashin's share of the offerings. His refusal resulted in the revival of the old dispute, and ultimately led to the present litigation.
The main combatants are the Sajjada Nashin and the Khadims, but there is also a Durgah Committee which is interested in the offerings. This Committee consists of persons who were appointed, under the Religious Endowments Act, 20 of 1863 , to perform the duties of the trustees of the Durgah property. The trial Judge adjudicated upon the rights of the various parties to the dispute, but on appeal his decision has been modified by the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer Merwara in respect of a few matters which will be discussed presently. The Sajjada Nashin as well as the Khadims are dissatisfied with the appellate judgment, and have appealed to His Majesty in Council. Their Lordships, after examining the arguments submitted to them, do not think that that judgment can be successfully challenged except on one small point. In view of the importance of the points in controversy, their Lordships however consider it advisable to discuss them seriatim.
On the question of the validity of the perpetual lease of the Sajjada Nashin's share of the offerings, the Court of Appeal, concurring with the trial Court, holds that the right to receive a share of the offerings is a right attached to the office of the Diwan, and that each successive incumbent of that office is entitled to receive that share as long as he holds the office. An alienation made by a Diwan of his share in the offerings cannot bind his successors. This decision has not been impugned by the learned counsel for the Khadims, and it is therefore clear that the lease cannot preclude the present Diwan from claiming his legitimate share in the offerings.
As regards the offerings made by the pilgrims, it was conceded by all the parties before the Court of Appeal that a distinction must be drawn between those articles, such as qabarposhes (coverings for the tomb), which are presented for the use of the Durgah, and the other offerings which are made at the Durgah. While the offerings belonging to the latter category may be divisible between the Diwan and the Khadims, those made for the specific use of the Durgah are the property of the Durgah. The Khadims however claim that an article presented for the use of the Durgah becomes the property of the Durgah only if the donor pays a tawan or custody money to them in respect of that article. There is however no documentary evidence to support the theory that the Khadims are entitled to an article presented for the use of the Shrine, if the donor thereof does not pay them custody money. They place their reliance only on oral evidence, which has been rightly disbelieved by the Court of Appeal. Indeed, the claim is wholly unreasonable and cannot be sustained. The qabarposhes, as well as gold or silv
